What's new

Chances of Iran Getting T-50

And you are wrong.

Assume that the F-35 have a higher radar cross section (RCS) value than the F-22, it was not because Lockheed paid less attention to the needs of RCS control than for the F-22. People like you who have no clue of what you are talking about misused and abused the word 'optimized'. I have posted plenty of explanations on the basic principles of radar detection and cross section control methods on this forum. Look them up.

The F-35 is less stealthy than the F-22 because it was designed to be cheaper than the F-22, in order to fill the "hi-lo" doctrine of the USAF. The F-22 was designed as the ultimate air combat machine. The F-35 was designed as a lower cost multirole jet to replace the F-16. This is why it has not been designed for all around stealth, rather focusing heavily on frontal stealth and leaving other angles at a lower priority. It's all to save cost.

What 'personal attack' ? I did not called you stupid or ugly.

You said I have a "paltry salary" purely because I'm an Iranian who happens to be disagreeing with you, implying that me and my countrymen are uneducated and are all binmen, or something like that. This is further enhanced by your constant belittling of me purely because I'm a student. If you want to have a meaningful conversation you better ditch this mindset of superiority and talk to me on equal terms. I will not "remain quiet" just because a random guy on the internet disagrees with me.

You made up your mind and facts do not matter.

Says the guy who finds pride in being a fanboy.

Fanboys are known for irrationally and fanatically supporting something. Now, I'm quite a fan of the F-14. But I'm not about to be a fanboy and say it can beat an F-22, or an Su-35. Because it can't.

When you cite pilots and engineers, you make it seem as if they are robots. They're not. They are humans and are therefore subject to forming an opinion. Opinions can be incorrect and often conflict with those of others. You may cite pilots/engineers who praise the F-35, and I can just as easily pilots/engineers who think it's a flying POS.

And you are wrong.

Assume that the F-35 have a higher radar cross section (RCS) value than the F-22, it was not because Lockheed paid less attention to the needs of RCS control than for the F-22. People like you who have no clue of what you are talking about misused and abused the word 'optimized'. I have posted plenty of explanations on the basic principles of radar detection and cross section control methods on this forum. Look them up.


What 'personal attack' ? I did not called you stupid or ugly.

As for f-16.net, outside of professional organizations and Lockheed itself, it will be very difficult to find a more knowledgeable group of military aviationists. You are talking about people from pilots to engineers to maintenance that have DIRECT experience with a wide variety of military aircrafts, including non-US ones. Did you know that we have MIGs in our inventory ?

Mikoyan MiG-29 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former US MiG pilot talks with 3rd Operations Group Airmen

If WE are fanboys, and I have no problem calling myself that, we are the best at what we do and we wear the 'fanboy' label as a badge of pride, young man. You are talking about a group whose American members worked on MIGs. :lol:


That is even worse for you.

What if I asked you: Go to the medical forums and criticize oncologists (cancer specialists), brain surgeons, or even general practitioners on how they do their jobs ? You would answer that you are a student and it would be insulting to the doctors for a student to talk about these highly educated, trained, and experienced people.

But here you are, a student, which mean you have no professional experience whatsoever in the real world in the technical fields, let alone in aviation, talking about an aircraft that is the result of decades of experience from tens of thousands of professionals.

Right...:rolleyes:


This is why YOU, a student, should remain quiet.

There are so many things the Iranian members got wrong about the F-35, but I will comment on the top speed for now.

Why is the F-35's top Mach is limited to less than Mach 2 ?

1- Approaching Mach 2 should have complex inlet geometries.

Most people uses 'inlet' and 'intake' interchangeably so I will use 'intake' for ease of understanding.

When an aircraft's design requirements have the it going past Mach 1.8, certain air flow behaviors begins to create complex problems for an air channel such as a jet engine intake. One of those behaviors is that supersonic air is destructive to jet engines, so intake air MUST be slowed down to below subsonic regardless of whatever speed of the aircraft.

The SR-71 cruises at Mach 3+ but its intake air velocity is definitely below Mach, or at subsonic. Else the airflow would rip the engines apart.

2- Because the F-35's mission requirements (plural) necessitate wing designs that limited the jet to lower than Mach 2.

The F-22 have a higher leading edge wing sweep angle than the F-35: 42 (F-22) to 35 (F-35).

Above Mach 1.8 should have higher leading edge wing sweep angle. The Bell X-1 have straight wings and it went Mach, but its straight wings produced high drag. So if the goals are fuel conservation and Mach 2, do not use straight wings. But the more the wings are swept, the less available room for hardpoints to carry things. The F-35 was designed to carry external ordnance when 'stealth' is less necessary. So a highly swept wings for the F-35 would not be supportive of its missions.

3- Smaller combat radius.

The Korean and Vietnam wars were learning times for jet fighters combat. In fact, what we know of air combat today are magnitudes difference to those yrs.

A 'combat radius' is defined as: The total physical distance a combat aircraft could travel from home base to target area, accomplish an objective, and return to base (RTB).

Running to that target area at supersonic speed consumes high qty of fuel and actually reduces the combat radius. Higher fuel gives either greater combat radius or longer loitering time to support ground objectives. This is why it takes literally hours of planning for a combat sortie so that pilots DO NOT have to use supersonic flight if they can afford it.

Further...Because the F-35 was designed with international customers in mind, and many of them lives next door to each other, it make little sense for the F-35 to have Mach capabilities beyond 1.8 when high subsonic is enough to get the jet from border to border. Is it possible that a Luftwaffe Tornado will fight against an Aeronautica Militare F-35 ? Yes, it is possible. We hope it never comes to that.

So just because neighbors are friends today, that does not mean they cannot be enemies tomorrow, so like it or not, all governments must plan their self defense accordingly. The F-35 suits diverse needs.


Our 'not latest' is other countries' best.


Iran wish it could produce something that good.

Looky here...You are ignorant of many things, and I say that kindly, if you are still a student. I have been debating this subject long to recognize a pattern: That you have not considered arguments in favor of the F-35.

You made up your mind and facts do not matter.

1. Speed. Even leaving out the F-35's huge weight, which makes it the heaviest single engine aircraft out there, you mention intakes. Intake ramps can indeed be unstealthy. They also suffer from large weight and high maintenance. While these, and the cones on earlier fighters like the MiG-21, reduce the inlet air to subsonic speeds, the F-35 uses a Diverterless Supersonic Inlet, but these do not face problems at Mach 1.6. As you already said, Mach 1.8/2 is what They are usually limited to. Now, an F-22 doesn't use DSI (AFAIK. The subject of the F-22 intake is murky and difficult to discern) but that manages speeds of over Mach 2, while maintaining high stealth. So the F-35's massive bottleneck problem isn't the intake, else the F-22 would be limited to Mach 1.6 too. In fact, you yourself give (one of) the F-35's biggest flaws in 2....

2. Drag. You basically agreed with me here. You're saying the wing sweep angle is too little (and might I add, there are a multitude of pods and blisters on that aircraft which increase drag and RCS, whatever you do with them), making the aircraft too draggy to fly faster. I'm saying the F-35 is draggy; you are saying the F-35 is draggy. End of discussion.

3. I didn't actually say anything about range/combat radius. I understand the F-35's range is quite good, certainly more than the F-22's. Though I'm always suspicious of combat radius and range figures, whatever aircraft they're on. You don't know what weapons they're carrying, what fuel load they have, if they have external/conformal fuel tanks, yada yada yada...

Your point about speed in combat: I'm not saying that the F-35 has to zip about everywhere at Mach 1.6. Even supercruise isn't the most efficient method of traveling (it's at best a demonstration of capability, at worst a marketing gimmick. Much like the "cobra" manoeuvre that flankers can pull). But speed and energy are core concepts of dogfighting, as well as gaining an energy advantage while launching BVR missiles, not to mention trying to evade them, ranging from simply turning around and running at zone 5 or trying to keep up high energy for the fast, descending turns that are often used to evade BVR missiles.

I consider the F-35 a strike aircraft like the F-117, at best it's a strike fighter, ala Panavia Tornado. It's dynamic capabilities are simply not suited to aerial combat. If you consider the future of aerial combat - which the F-35 was supposed to dominate - you'll see many nations, especially China and Russia, are also looking to manufacture stealth fighter aircraft. The "first look, first kill" advantage will be eroded. Then what? Aircraft will be forced to engage in IRST range and even WVR. Compared to aircraft like the Su-50 (which has recently posted a record 384 m/s climb rate), the F-35 has no chance.

The F-35 may well be a decent enough strike aircraft, but it's not a pure bred fighter. It was designed from the outset as a do it all jack of all trades. The F-111 was meant to be that, and it was a total failure.
 
Last edited:
.
And you are wrong.

Assume that the F-35 have a higher radar cross section (RCS) value than the F-22, it was not because Lockheed paid less attention to the needs of RCS control than for the F-22. People like you who have no clue of what you are talking about misused and abused the word 'optimized'. I have posted plenty of explanations on the basic principles of radar detection and cross section control methods on this forum. Look them up.


What 'personal attack' ? I did not called you stupid or ugly.

As for f-16.net, outside of professional organizations and Lockheed itself, it will be very difficult to find a more knowledgeable group of military aviationists. You are talking about people from pilots to engineers to maintenance that have DIRECT experience with a wide variety of military aircrafts, including non-US ones. Did you know that we have MIGs in our inventory ?

Mikoyan MiG-29 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123314594

If WE are fanboys, and I have no problem calling myself that, we are the best at what we do and we wear the 'fanboy' label as a badge of pride, young man. You are talking about a group whose American members worked on MIGs. :lol:


That is even worse for you.

What if I asked you: Go to the medical forums and criticize oncologists (cancer specialists), brain surgeons, or even general practitioners on how they do their jobs ? You would answer that you are a student and it would be insulting to the doctors for a student to talk about these highly educated, trained, and experienced people.

But here you are, a student, which mean you have no professional experience whatsoever in the real world in the technical fields, let alone in aviation, talking about an aircraft that is the result of decades of experience from tens of thousands of professionals.

Right...:rolleyes:


This is why YOU, a student, should remain quiet.

There are so many things the Iranian members got wrong about the F-35, but I will comment on the top speed for now.

Why is the F-35's top Mach is limited to less than Mach 2 ?

1- Approaching Mach 2 should have complex inlet geometries.

Most people uses 'inlet' and 'intake' interchangeably so I will use 'intake' for ease of understanding.

When an aircraft's design requirements have the it going past Mach 1.8, certain air flow behaviors begins to create complex problems for an air channel such as a jet engine intake. One of those behaviors is that supersonic air is destructive to jet engines, so intake air MUST be slowed down to below subsonic regardless of whatever speed of the aircraft.

The SR-71 cruises at Mach 3+ but its intake air velocity is definitely below Mach, or at subsonic. Else the airflow would rip the engines apart.

2- Because the F-35's mission requirements (plural) necessitate wing designs that limited the jet to lower than Mach 2.

The F-22 have a higher leading edge wing sweep angle than the F-35: 42 (F-22) to 35 (F-35).

Above Mach 1.8 should have higher leading edge wing sweep angle. The Bell X-1 have straight wings and it went Mach, but its straight wings produced high drag. So if the goals are fuel conservation and Mach 2, do not use straight wings. But the more the wings are swept, the less available room for hardpoints to carry things. The F-35 was designed to carry external ordnance when 'stealth' is less necessary. So a highly swept wings for the F-35 would not be supportive of its missions.

3- Smaller combat radius.

The Korean and Vietnam wars were learning times for jet fighters combat. In fact, what we know of air combat today are magnitudes difference to those yrs.

A 'combat radius' is defined as: The total physical distance a combat aircraft could travel from home base to target area, accomplish an objective, and return to base (RTB).

Running to that target area at supersonic speed consumes high qty of fuel and actually reduces the combat radius. Higher fuel gives either greater combat radius or longer loitering time to support ground objectives. This is why it takes literally hours of planning for a combat sortie so that pilots DO NOT have to use supersonic flight if they can afford it.

Further...Because the F-35 was designed with international customers in mind, and many of them lives next door to each other, it make little sense for the F-35 to have Mach capabilities beyond 1.8 when high subsonic is enough to get the jet from border to border. Is it possible that a Luftwaffe Tornado will fight against an Aeronautica Militare F-35 ? Yes, it is possible. We hope it never comes to that.

So just because neighbors are friends today, that does not mean they cannot be enemies tomorrow, so like it or not, all governments must plan their self defense accordingly. The F-35 suits diverse needs.


Our 'not latest' is other countries' best.


Iran wish it could produce something that good.

Looky here...You are ignorant of many things, and I say that kindly, if you are still a student. I have been debating this subject long to recognize a pattern: That you have not considered arguments in favor of the F-35.

You made up your mind and facts do not matter.
You sound like someone who is bored and is looking for some heated conversation.

We Iranians believe that quality speaks for itself and doesn't need any advertisement. So if you are as knowledgeable as you claim, you don't need to brag about it and call others kids, fanboys, students,... Just spit out your valuable knowledge humbly and if it is really valuable, respect will follow naturally at the very least from Iranians. Because that's how we are raised.

This thread is not about Iran against US and/or which side is more knowledgeable in aviation so don't turn it into one . And if you are trying to prove that US is more advanced than Iran (seriously?) I don't know what to tell you.
 
Last edited:
.
The F-35 is less stealthy than the F-22 because it was designed to be cheaper than the F-22, in order to fill the "hi-lo" doctrine of the USAF. The F-22 was designed as the ultimate air combat machine. The F-35 was designed as a lower cost multirole jet to replace the F-16. This is why it has not been designed for all around stealth, rather focusing heavily on frontal stealth and leaving other angles at a lower priority. It's all to save cost.
And I will say it again...You are wrong.

You obviously have no experience in designing anything, or even putting what was designed by others into testing.

If the F-35 have a higher RCS value than the F-22, it came from DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, not from lack of attention or financial constraints (cheaper). If customer's requirements, which dictate design considerations, have an air vent bulge at X location, RCS control methods will have that air vent bulge to be as low in physical prominence as possible. Lockheed engineers would not simply install that air vent bulge and do not measure its radiation output. They would point a radar gun at the bulge, measure how much it radiate and pattern of radiation, then see if the air vent bulge can be made smaller without affecting whatever air flow it supposed to provide. The same air vent bulge may not require/exist for other aircrafts. The air vent bulge may contribute to the F-35's higher RCS value, but that is from design necessities, not from carelessness or financial constraints.

Do you understand now ?

You said I have a "paltry salary" purely because I'm an Iranian who happens to be disagreeing with you, implying that me and my countrymen are uneducated and are all binmen, or something like that. This is further enhanced by your constant belittling of me purely because I'm a student. If you want to have a meaningful conversation you better ditch this mindset of superiority and talk to me on equal terms. I will not "remain quiet" just because a random guy on the internet disagrees with me.
So answer this question: Would YOU, a student, criticize a brain surgeon about how he does his job, from diagnosis to planning to execution of surgery ?

Says the guy who finds pride in being a fanboy.

Fanboys are known for irrationally and fanatically supporting something. Now, I'm quite a fan of the F-14. But I'm not about to be a fanboy and say it can beat an F-22, or an Su-35. Because it can't.
You have your definition of what is a 'fanboy'. I have mine. My support for the F-35 is not irrational. It came from nearly 19 yrs of aviation experience, 10 yrs in the USAF on the F-111 and F-16, then nearly 9 yrs in the civilian sector.

I have no problem calling myself a 'fanboy'.

When you cite pilots and engineers, you make it seem as if they are robots. They're not. They are humans and are therefore subject to forming an opinion. Opinions can be incorrect and often conflict with those of others. You may cite pilots/engineers who praise the F-35, and I can just as easily pilots/engineers who think it's a flying POS.
You mean Pierre Sprey ? The guy who wanted the F-16 to be without a radar ?

1. Speed. Even leaving out the F-35's huge weight, which makes it the heaviest single engine aircraft out there, you mention intakes. Intake ramps can indeed be unstealthy. They also suffer from large weight and high maintenance. While these, and the cones on earlier fighters like the MiG-21, reduce the inlet air to subsonic speeds, the F-35 uses a Diverterless Supersonic Inlet, but these do not face problems at Mach 1.6. As you already said, Mach 1.8/2 is what They are usually limited to. Now, an F-22 doesn't use DSI (AFAIK. The subject of the F-22 intake is murky and difficult to discern) but that manages speeds of over Mach 2, while maintaining high stealth. So the F-35's massive bottleneck problem isn't the intake, else the F-22 would be limited to Mach 1.6 too. In fact, you yourself give (one of) the F-35's biggest flaws in 2....
The problem with this criticism is that you presume there is an external standard for top speed that all aircrafts must match. Wrong.

Again...This is about customer's requirements which affects design considerations.

There is no 'massive bottleneck'. If customer's requirements does not calls for Mach 10, then there is no 'bottleneck' if the jet's top speed is Mach 1.8 or even lower. The top speed is simply the result of engineering. Customer's requirements did not called for Mach 2.

Why is this so difficult to understand ? If I did not called for pepperoni, then there should be no pepperoni on my pizza, and if there is no pepperoni on my pizza, then there is nothing wrong with my pizza even though my friend's pizza have pepperoni on it.

2. Drag. You basically agreed with me here. You're saying the wing sweep angle is too little (and might I add, there are a multitude of pods and blisters on that aircraft which increase drag and RCS, whatever you do with them), making the aircraft too draggy to fly faster. I'm saying the F-35 is draggy; you are saying the F-35 is draggy. End of discussion.
I agreed with you on nothing. The difference between us is massive.

You called the F-35 'draggy' as a flaw. I called the drag component as the result of -- again -- customer's requirements which affects design considerations.

If the wing sweep angle produced a higher drag component, that is not a flaw because a flaw implies an external standard, and there is no such standard. Going by your argument, a glider is a flawed aircraft. Absurd.

3. I didn't actually say anything about range/combat radius.
Because probably you did not know that fuel consumption affects combat radius. Else you would not criticize the F-35's supposedly 'flaw' in top speed.

Your point about speed in combat: I'm not saying that the F-35 has to zip about everywhere at Mach 1.6.
Then your criticism of its top speed is evidently immature.

But speed and energy are core concepts of dogfighting,...
Then show me when, in the era of jet engines, did air combat ever had combatants maneuvers at Mach. If you cannot provide that information, your criticism of the F-35's top speed is -- again -- immature. No other word to describe it.

Compared to aircraft like the Su-50 (which has recently posted a record 384 m/s climb rate), the F-35 has no chance.
:lol:

The F-35, for all its issues, is much further along than the PAK. Assuming the program will continue, by the time the PAK reaches mass production stage, the F-35 will have even better features that will render the PAK that POS you talked about.

The Soviets/Russians are great aerodynamicists, but as designers and engineers, they leave much to be desired.

The F-35 may well be a decent enough strike aircraft, but it's not a pure bred fighter.
Then you are comparing a sports sedan against a truck.

If you compare a sports sedan like a BMW against the truck, the car will lose.

If you compare the truck against the sports sedan, the truck will lose.

When the F-16 came out, as a jack-of-all-trades, it raised the bars for all those trades. So there is nothing wrong with being a jack-of-all-trades. The F-35 will raise those bars even higher.

But here is something for you to read regarding the F-35's ability for air combat...

The Aviationist » “Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account

The F-35 will swallow the PAK and shit out a Tornado.

It was designed from the outset as a do it all jack of all trades. The F-111 was meant to be that, and it was a total failure.
The F-111 a total failure ? :lol:

When I was on the F-111 at RAF Upper Heyford, I learned that the F-111 was the world's best penetration fighter-bomber. The jet was actually more maneuverable than people gave it credit. Overall, the F-111's g capability is nearly the same as the F-15. Believe it or not. And there was nearly a 20 yr gap between the two jets. At every arms reduction negotiation, the Soviets wanted to remove the F-111 from England and every time we told the Soviets to F-off. Nothing like flying over the Scotland hills in hard TF mode. I know and you will never know.

So please do not talk as if you know what you are talking about.
 
.
And you are wrong.

A
1- Approaching Mach 2 should have complex inlet geometries.

Most people uses 'inlet' and 'intake' interchangeably so I will use 'intake' for ease of understanding.

When an aircraft's design requirements have the it going past Mach 1.8, certain air flow behaviors begins to create complex problems for an air channel such as a jet engine intake. One of those behaviors is that supersonic air is destructive to jet engines, so intake air MUST be slowed down to below subsonic regardless of whatever speed of the aircraft.

The SR-71 cruises at Mach 3+ but its intake air velocity is definitely below Mach, or at subsonic. Else the airflow would rip the engines apart.

.

It's called bypass and that's a quick cheat to increase bypass for the """""fans"""""""" and stick to turbofan engines! scram jet and ram jet are a complete different story!


And what's your point? At Mach 1.6 with horrible maneuverability that aircraft is still a turkey! and an easy target for IR seeking missiles

Speed kills! And if you were truly a pilot you would know that!
 
.
The F-35 is less stealthy than the F-22 because it was designed to be cheaper than the F-22, in order to fill the "hi-lo" doctrine of the USAF. The F-22 was designed as the ultimate air combat machine. The F-35 was designed as a lower cost multirole jet to replace the F-16. This is why it has not been designed for all around stealth, rather focusing heavily on frontal stealth and leaving other angles at a lower priority. It's all to save cost.



You said I have a "paltry salary" purely because I'm an Iranian who happens to be disagreeing with you, implying that me and my countrymen are uneducated and are all binmen, or something like that. This is further enhanced by your constant belittling of me purely because I'm a student. If you want to have a meaningful conversation you better ditch this mindset of superiority and talk to me on equal terms. I will not "remain quiet" just because a random guy on the internet disagrees with me.



Says the guy who finds pride in being a fanboy.

Fanboys are known for irrationally and fanatically supporting something. Now, I'm quite a fan of the F-14. But I'm not about to be a fanboy and say it can beat an F-22, or an Su-35. Because it can't.

When you cite pilots and engineers, you make it seem as if they are robots. They're not. They are humans and are therefore subject to forming an opinion. Opinions can be incorrect and often conflict with those of others. You may cite pilots/engineers who praise the F-35, and I can just as easily pilots/engineers who think it's a flying POS.



1. Speed. Even leaving out the F-35's huge weight, which makes it the heaviest single engine aircraft out there, you mention intakes. Intake ramps can indeed be unstealthy. They also suffer from large weight and high maintenance. While these, and the cones on earlier fighters like the MiG-21, reduce the inlet air to subsonic speeds, the F-35 uses a Diverterless Supersonic Inlet, but these do not face problems at Mach 1.6. As you already said, Mach 1.8/2 is what They are usually limited to. Now, an F-22 doesn't use DSI (AFAIK. The subject of the F-22 intake is murky and difficult to discern) but that manages speeds of over Mach 2, while maintaining high stealth. So the F-35's massive bottleneck problem isn't the intake, else the F-22 would be limited to Mach 1.6 too. In fact, you yourself give (one of) the F-35's biggest flaws in 2....

2. Drag. You basically agreed with me here. You're saying the wing sweep angle is too little (and might I add, there are a multitude of pods and blisters on that aircraft which increase drag and RCS, whatever you do with them), making the aircraft too draggy to fly faster. I'm saying the F-35 is draggy; you are saying the F-35 is draggy. End of discussion.

3. I didn't actually say anything about range/combat radius. I understand the F-35's range is quite good, certainly more than the F-22's. Though I'm always suspicious of combat radius and range figures, whatever aircraft they're on. You don't know what weapons they're carrying, what fuel load they have, if they have external/conformal fuel tanks, yada yada yada...

Your point about speed in combat: I'm not saying that the F-35 has to zip about everywhere at Mach 1.6. Even supercruise isn't the most efficient method of traveling (it's at best a demonstration of capability, at worst a marketing gimmick. Much like the "cobra" manoeuvre that flankers can pull). But speed and energy are core concepts of dogfighting, as well as gaining an energy advantage while launching BVR missiles, not to mention trying to evade them, ranging from simply turning around and running at zone 5 or trying to keep up high energy for the fast, descending turns that are often used to evade BVR missiles.

I consider the F-35 a strike aircraft like the F-117, at best it's a strike fighter, ala Panavia Tornado. It's dynamic capabilities are simply not suited to aerial combat. If you consider the future of aerial combat - which the F-35 was supposed to dominate - you'll see many nations, especially China and Russia, are also looking to manufacture stealth fighter aircraft. The "first look, first kill" advantage will be eroded. Then what? Aircraft will be forced to engage in IRST range and even WVR. Compared to aircraft like the Su-50 (which has recently posted a record 384 m/s climb rate), the F-35 has no chance.

The F-35 may well be a decent enough strike aircraft, but it's not a pure bred fighter. It was designed from the outset as a do it all jack of all trades. The F-111 was meant to be that, and it was a total failure.

You wont win. He is a former air force pilot.
 
.
And I will say it again...You are wrong.

You obviously have no experience in designing anything, or even putting what was designed by others into testing.

If the F-35 have a higher RCS value than the F-22, it came from DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, not from lack of attention or financial constraints (cheaper). If customer's requirements, which dictate design considerations, have an air vent bulge at X location, RCS control methods will have that air vent bulge to be as low in physical prominence as possible. Lockheed engineers would not simply install that air vent bulge and do not measure its radiation output. They would point a radar gun at the bulge, measure how much it radiate and pattern of radiation, then see if the air vent bulge can be made smaller without affecting whatever air flow it supposed to provide. The same air vent bulge may not require/exist for other aircrafts. The air vent bulge may contribute to the F-35's higher RCS value, but that is from design necessities, not from carelessness or financial constraints.

The most basic design limitation of the F-35 is that is is small and single engined. It was designed to fit the "lo" part of the USAF hi-lo doctrine. By having such a small aircraft, which you consequently design to fill the roles of 3 major services, not to mention trying to make it do the job of the A-10 and the E/A-18, you are trying to cram as much electronics as possible into a relatively small airframe. Thats why the plane is so heavy and it has so many bulges and why it has been difficult to keep costs down. Now, whatever you do with pods and blisters, they still drag the aircraft down aerodynamically and RCS-wise. Add that to the overall drag (like the low wing sweep) and the lower focus on all-around stealth (like the traditional engine exhaust), you have a draggy airframe with a lesser focus on all around stealth.

So answer this question: Would YOU, a student, criticize a brain surgeon about how he does his job, from diagnosis to planning to execution of surgery ?

A brain surgeon is told to do something exactly. If he does not do that he could kill someone directly.

An aircraft designer is told specifications but he is open to meeting them. Design is subject to opinion. And I would definitely criticize design, whether it be an F-35, an F-22, and Su-50... whatever. I'd definitely criticize a design heavily if it did not have a radar.

And I will say it again...You are wrong.

There is no 'massive bottleneck'. If customer's requirements does not calls for Mach 10, then there is no 'bottleneck' if the jet's top speed is Mach 1.8 or even lower. The top speed is simply the result of engineering. Customer's requirements did not called for Mach 2.

If an aircraft can fly at mach 2 or above, it is a clear indication that the aircraft in question is very rapid at accelerating. Sure, the majority of aerial combat does not occur at mach 2 (only when the aircraft is trying to be defensive and fly away to outrange the enemy missiles, in which case the F-35's hot engine and slow top whack puts it at a severe disadvantage), but if the aircraft is good at accelerating to mach 2 then it obviously is very good at gaining and retaining energy, which is the single biggest aspect of aerial combat.

I agreed with you on nothing. The difference between us is massive.

You called the F-35 'draggy' as a flaw. I called the drag component as the result of -- again -- customer's requirements which affects design considerations.

If the wing sweep angle produced a higher drag component, that is not a flaw because a flaw implies an external standard, and there is no such standard. Going by your argument, a glider is a flawed aircraft. Absurd.

Lockheed Martin is constantly pushing the F-35 as a "fighter", and its customers are retiring F-16s to make room for the F-35. Now, fighter jets are usually meant to improve on the performance of their predecessors, aren't they? I don't see the F-35 as offering much, if any, kinematic advantages over its predecessors.

Now, if we were to assume that the F-35 was a strike aircraft, and not a fighter aircraft, it would fit the bill. But it does not have the kinematic characteristics of a fighter jet.


Because probably you did not know that fuel consumption affects combat radius.

What are you trying to paint me as? A fvcking sh!t for brains fool? What sort of mentally challenged idiot woul I have to be to reason that fuel consumption doesn't affect combat radius??? I thought I said lets have a discussion on respectful and equal terms!

Then show me when, in the era of jet engines, did air combat ever had combatants maneuvers at Mach.

Not so much manoeuvres, I didn't claim that, but air combat has certainly required supersonic capability. Otherwise the world would still be flying subsonic fighter jets. Can you think of anything more unholy than that?

Since you requested an example: Why do you think Iran has F-14s? One of (if not, the) biggest reasons why Iran got F-14s was that the fast, high flying Russian MiG-25s were too much for the IIAF F-4s. Too fast. What the IIAF needed was a fast, long range aircraft capable of firing long range missiles to intercept the Russian MiGs. The Mach 2.3 F-14, and its Mach 5 AIM-54 Pheonix, represented the solution.

by the time the PAK reaches mass production stage

Aerospace Forces will procure T-50 fighter plane in 2017 | Russia Beyond The Headlines

The Russians are getting a move on with the Su-50. The aircraft is largely finished. The only thing they are waiting on are the izdeliye 30 engines, but which they can breathe for right now since the AL-41 (with its 384 m/s climb rate) is good enough for the Su-50 right now. The F-35 in comparison, has something like 160 aircraft which aren't even wired to fire missiles. They are at IOC. That will be an expensive retrofit.

The F-35 will swallow the PAK

wow... I guess BordoEnes is right in some respect. You can't really win against someone who has that mindset.

The Aviationist » “Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35”: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account

Ah, I've heard of the pilot who was the subject of that article. He is the same guy who claimed the F-35 can fly at Mach 1.6 with full fuel and full bombs and missiles weapons load o_O

The F-111 a total failure ?

The F-111 was designed to be a fighter jet, a strike aircraft, an electronic warfare aircraft. While I'll admit that it wasn't a total failure (that was an exaggeration on my part), it certainly did NOT fill the fighter role, for which a lot of development and money had gone into. It had a large bomb bay, good range and high speed, all good characteristics for a non-stealth interdictor. But it was not a good air to air fighter at all. The F-111B never got past the prototype stage.

Regarding the soviet arms reduction talks: Bombers are strategic, fighters are tactical. Evidently, the soviets thought the F-111 was strategic.
 
. .
He is just a pilot , not a scientist and this is scientific and technological debate ...

Consider this, i am studying Aviation and the knowledge of a Pilot is so vast that in practice he could actually become an engineer aswell. Its because he is "just" a pilot that he knows much more then anyone else, especcialy with real time applications and experience. For you to become a pilot you need to know a plane inside and out.
 
.
Consider this, i am studying Aviation and the knowledge of a Pilot is so vast that in practice he could actually become an engineer aswell. Its because he is "just" a pilot that he knows much more then anyone else, especcialy with real time applications and experience. For you to become a pilot you need to know a plane inside and out.

But certainly he can't force his ideas to others , nor you can do this to others ... if he is right , he can prove it with logical reason in a debate , so there is no need to try silence opposite side with saying " I'm a pilot " ...
 
.
Ahmadi Nejad is coming back , and for sure Qaher project , our aerospace projects will revive again ...
 
.
Ahmadi Nejad is coming back , and for sure Qaher project , our aerospace projects will revive again ...
The qaher won't go anywhere until we again learn to design specialised microprocessors. once we knew how to do that but sadly ahmadinejad destroyed the company who knew how to design microprocessors and even designed one that had the power equilant to an entry level and processor of the time.
 
.
Ahmadi Nejad is coming back , and for sure Qaher project , our aerospace projects will revive again ...

I certainly hope not.

He had no economic policy, a big mouth, and the lasting impression he left for the Qaher was a fibre glass piece of shit that destroyed every ounce of credibility the country had.
 
.
Compared to the F-22, T-50, Typhoon, Su-30SM, Su-35, Su-37, MiG-35, Rafale,...

Compared to those fighters in the hands of a skilled pilot the F-35 is JUNK! now I would't call it junk if its price tag was under $35 million but if your paying over $100 million for that fighter it better be a force multiplier like the F-22 and the F-35 is not so it's JUNK

It's not that it's Max Speed is less then Mach 2! It's that it's max speed is only Mach 1.6 and it still lacks maneuverability which makes it highly vulnerable to IR seeking missiles! It's the combination that make it the turkey that it is....

A spade is a spade doesn't matter who says it! it's still a spade!
How come it's a junk while it posses the best electronics a nation can make.

I don't know why you obsessed with the speed of the plane while the fate of any fight between two fighters take place in 300 to 500 kilometer.

Bro, this F-35 fighter been in development for like 20 years and the designer the owner of it is nation sits on the top of science and technology.

Iran wont have it's hand on such technology until 10 years to come.
 
.
I would say the chances are high, but it will depend on the state of Iran's economy, and the cost to procure,maintain and it's effectiveness.

just buying a few dozen will have a major psychological impact than anything on the U.S and Israel.


I think the perfect soultion would to be to buy 1 for 1 to replace it's F-4,F-7,F-14, and Mig-29s

103 birds for 103 Su-50


I would bet the total package would easily cost about $15 billion to $20 billion
 
Last edited:
.
I would say the chances are high, but it will depend on the state of Iran's economy, and the cost to procure,maintain and it's effectiveness.

just buying a few dozen will have a major psychological impact than anything on the U.S and Israel.


I think the perfect soultion would to be to buy 1 for 1 to replace it's F-4,F-7,F-14, and Mig-29s

103 birds for 103 Su-50


I would bet the total package would easily cost about $15 billion to $20 billion


I don't think its going to happen.

The Russians have f*cked about with the S-300 fiasco for 9 years, and that is a system from the 20th century.

I'd be surprised if Iran gets the Su-50 any earlier than 2116.

How come it's a junk while it posses the best electronics a nation can make.

I don't know why you obsessed with the speed of the plane while the fate of any fight between two fighters take place in 300 to 500 kilometer.

Bro, this F-35 fighter been in development for like 20 years and the designer the owner of it is nation sits on the top of science and technology.

Iran wont have it's hand on such technology until 10 years to come.

You cannot just say something is going to be good because you expect it to be.

Speed is important for escaping missiles, or launching them at high speed and altitude in order to increase their range and energy. Having good acceleration is also useful in within visual range fights.

You cannot do much with electronics if the platform is bad. The F-35 is more suited to a strike aircraft, its inferior kinematics prevent it from effectively engaging other aircraft.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom