AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
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.
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.
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...
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:
