Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Normally yes. I hope so for a more recent bird.
But less load, less maturity, less range (I'm not sure...).
Except Rafale or maybe Typhoon/Gripen, others don't beat Tejas in terms of RCS at all. Clean Tejas has supposedly frontal RCS of 0.5^m2, much lower than Mirage-2000/JF-17/J-10C. But load all of them with 6 missiles and drop tanks and all would get detected by modern radars from very far.
That's where F-35s passive stealth shines and puts it above all the aforementioned in BVR combat. Though I disagree with 6:1 ratio quoted by LM. Against Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen-E, that ratio won't be possible. At best 1.5:1, that's it.
There were supposedly problems with maintaining the sortie rate.
Maintenance requirements defines how many hours. The supply chain defines how much time it will take to get that part.
Hence, my query. In a one off sortie, maintenance hours in theory can work. When you need to sustain a sortie rate, the rest of the picture gets exposed. Hence, my query. Does management theory like just in time work in a war environment.
The F-35 is facing two main problems. One is engine trouble, and that's affecting the sortie rate. They plan on bringing upgrades to fix that. This is what happens when you mass produce LSP models. But it's fixable, but let's see when.
The second is "just-in-time" logistics. So they plan on delivering logistics right when supply is necessary. This is less of a problem during peacetime and a serious deficiency during war, when logistics and supply lines are attacked.
The "just-in-time" logistics will fail spectacularly during war with a near-peer or a peer adversary. In fact, I believe China will be a peer adversary to the US when they actually invade Taiwan.
But I get the feeling there will be a stockpile made available for war. This stockpile could be a company-owned one instead of a military-owned one. HAL also has a 5-year stockpile of Su-30 spares which is released in a sort of just-in-time method to the IAF who hold significantly lower levels of inventory, and HAL then refreshes their inventory on a yearly basis from Russia. So it's possible LM supplies spares in a similar manner.
Versus JF-17, LCA has lower wingloading, superior climb rate, superior ITR, higher Gs, more payload, easier maintenance, faster turnaround, extra hardpoint, lighter airframe, higher service life, better engine...
"HAL has a 5 yr stockpile of spares which it releases to the IAF in a sort of JIT method....
...."
Somebody please either slap RST or me .
I swear if any business process auditor reads this he'd either commit suicide or shoot RST preferably thru the very aperture he's making these comments from .
I used to think the standard of discourse here was pretty average . It's actually much worse than that as I've just discovered. This is P D F style discourse in good English. That's all .
...."
Somebody please either slap RST or me .
I swear if any business process auditor reads this he'd either commit suicide or shoot RST preferably thru the very aperture he's making these comments from .
I used to think the standard of discourse here was pretty average . It's actually much worse than that as I've just discovered. This is P D F style discourse in good English. That's all .
....and MK1A will have AESA radar, GaN EW suite with digital RWR covering 1 GHz to 40GHz frequency, podded IRST, podded DC-MAWS...above what you mentioned, bringing its capacity/capability far beyond any JF-17(even in block-3) would ever reach. In fact all the above is good enough to make it even better than Mirage-2000 UPG.
Yeah, avionics makes it more modern, but we were referring to performance alone. The M2000 is way better there, given the fact that it's not underpowered.
For that we'll need to wait for Mk2. Even then, it won't beat Mirage-2000 in top speed. Having said that, M-2000 is even faster than Rafale. So
For that we'll need to wait for Mk2. Even then, it won't beat Mirage-2000 in top speed. Having said that, M-2000 is even faster than Rafale. So
Top speed is irrelevant for jets of this class. And speeds higher than mach 1.8 are irrelevant in the Indian environment. A dash speed of mach 1.6-1.8 is more than enough. In fact, the range bonus jets get from mach 1.6 is more important.
A Delta has lower wingload and best ITR, but : lower STR and it degrades kinetic energy faster.
These are two kind of beasts in air to air : a delta has to win at the beginning of a dog fight thanks to best ITR.
Rafale (and Gripen and probably J-10) thanks to close coupled canards, are able to maintain a pretty good STR. In the Gripen case the engine thrust may be a little bit short for that...
JF-17 is said to have an AESA radar also int he latest variant.
Marines Stand Back Up 'Tomcats' as a F-35C Lighting II Squadron - USNI News
MIRAMAR MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, San Diego, Calif. — A deactivated squadron got new life as Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 311 in a Friday ceremony attended by scores of combat veterans and an F-35C Lightning II jet sporting the “Tomcats” historic squadron logo. The Marine Corps had deactivated...
news.usni.org
F-35 Fighters Create 'Big Impact' In Ukraine War Without Firing A Missile; Draws Key Lessons For Future Battles
After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet has proved to be a valuable asset for the US Air Force over Eastern Europe, according to the Air Force Times.
eurasiantimes.com
Typhoon isn't a close-coupled canard, but nothing can touch its STR performance. Tejas being Cranked Delta, is also not that better in STR. In fact, much better than JF-17.
Yes, so called air cooled AESA. While Tejas MKI1A is about to get much advance Israeli AESA and in future Uttam AESA with liquid cooling and 912 TRMs. No comparison actually.
So we are admitting now that F-35s have been in combat?
trying to hype up the Rafale but you just expose the weaknesses. Your post actually did an amazing job at highlighting why the F-35 beats the Rafale in that post.
Here, Let Me Google That For You
Passive-aggressively teach your friends how to Google. For all those people who find it more convenient to ask you rather than search it themselves. Not associated with Google.
googlethatforyou.com
I don't think anything really "Supercruises" outside Mig-31 F-22 or other exceptions. or as pickleoil said, everything can supercruise if we lower the standar a certain way. The Rafale is not much of a better supercruiser than anything else, and runs into the same problems. Supercruise is a fairly misunderstood thing overall. very few aircraft are actually clearing the layer (which goes beyond mach 1)
in difference to the fanboys here who tell me that stealth compromises aerodynamics so much the F-35 and Rafale are not that far off each other. Rafale is still a sub Mach 2 airplane, its as fast as an F-18, which is a sub mach 2 aircraft.
Flankers, F-15s, F-22s, Gripens, F-16s, Typhoons, Mig-31 mach 2 or more aircraft. I know there is more to life than speed but its kind of funny to me that the Rafale is sold as some kind of kinematic world beating machine. I also don't think I have ever heard of a true "supercruise" aircraft that topped out at Sub mach 2. Usually the airplanes with the aerodynamics and power to achieve actual notable supercruise are all Mach 2 at least airplanes, to include the Concorde.
The hilarity of being told the Rafale is high performance when the speed is within about 10 percent of the F-35 is risible. The blistering mach 1.8 compared to the F-35s pathetic Mach 1.66 or sometimes qouted Mach 1.7. Imagine if the Rafale wasn't "high performance!" why it would be almost as slow as the F-35!
it can learn!
The lack of self awareness is the stuff of legend.
The entire purpose of Gripen is to do things about as well as an F-16 while having advantages in mainteanance and costs. Gripen Either meets or beats F-16 in most areas, and in the areas it falls short its essentially Augistine's law number 15:
"The last 10 percent of performance generates one-third of the cost and two-thirds of the problems."
The F-16 is welcome to have that 10 percent. F414 is one of the most powerful and physically tough engines in its class. its not an F110 or F100 but that is of course an conscious and smart decision. the Thrust to weight ratio for F414 is simply unsurpassed in its class.
the problem for Rafale regarding the Gripen E is that the Gripen E can largely do what Rafale can, and even surpass it in some areas for much less cost. F-8 Crusaders were once more Mature and trusted than Rafale M, but life moves on. Maturity will come naturally, time is undefeated.
you are at least right about the Gripen E being the more recent bird
6th generation and all. to a Gripen fan the Rafale looks like an F-35. why pay more when you can be smart and strike a better balance? I would also trust Gripen E in "supercruise" or whatever we want to call it compared to Rafale. Gripen is mach 2+, F414 can handle the stress better, etc.
Lockheed Will Miss Its Goal for F-35 Deliveries in 2023
An engine delivery pause and Tech Refresh 3 delays will prevent Lockheed from meeting its 2023 F-35 delivery goal.
www.airandspaceforces.com
"Speaking on a first-quarter earnings call with financial reporters April 18, Taiclet said “we do expect a fraction of total expected 2023 deliveries to be impacted later this year, due to both software maturation related to Technology Refresh 3 and hardware delivery timing.”"Lockheed Will Miss Its Goal for F-35 Deliveries in 2023
An engine delivery pause and Tech Refresh 3 delays will prevent Lockheed from meeting its 2023 F-35 delivery goal.
its at least real news compared to an interview of an Australian defense minister who 15 years ago told us the F-35 program was too optimistic.