Lockheed says F35 will replace F15's
- Thread starter Torch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The F-35 is a lot more maneuverable than being credited for, but I doubt you're going to call it a dedicated air superiority fighter.
Butters
Senior Airman
We might not but LM seems quite happy to:
"Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed vice president for business development, supported Lockheed's analysis, saying a single F-35 provides the capability of six F-15s in air-to-air simulations. Although the F-35's projected top speed of M1.6 falls short of the F-15's M2.5 maximum, O'Bryan says, the F-35's higher level of stealth offsets the F-15's speed advantage in calculations of overall survivability."
Let's see... if one F-35 equals six F-15Cs, then 8 F-35s equals... Umm, does this mean that 2 Spanish Typhoons can lay the whoopass on 48 F-35s?
JL
PS: BTW, did you see where Gates said that 8 Predators (IIRC) were equal to 36 F-16's as CAS assets?
EDIT: Here's the link to the O'Bryan quote:
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...10-lockheed-says-f-35s-will-replace-usaf.html
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I saw it Butters and you continue your rant. Bottom line I think the aircraft is going to be built and its going to be one of the most advanced combat aircraft to date. In the mean time if I was you i'd write your PM and start getting DND to put together a purchase proposal.
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
Lockheed Martin says it is very maneuverable, that isn't the same as actually being very maneuverable. You've got to bear in mind the massive marketing campaign currently going on (with Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale etc. as well) and manufacturers statements with a pinch of salt. The F-35 has a comparatively high wing loading and a comparatively low thrust/weight ratio combined with a fairly draggy stealth airframe (stealth features add a lot of drag and weight). It's not going to be as manoeuverable as contemporary aircraft unless Lockheed Martin has used some magic pixie dust.
How much manoeuverability actually matters for the F-35 is another matter. Plenty of capability to stop the combat before it gets within visual range.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And did you read the rest of my post???
"But I doubt you're going to call it a dedicated air superiority fighter."
I've seen it fly - it is VERY maneuverable. With that said, I would hope ANY potential F-35 customer takes
Steve O'Bryan's comments with a grain of salt and determine their own needs.
As a former Lockheed employee and having worked with marketing folks they will tell you anything and it doesn't matter what company they work for. The fact remains the F-35 will be a record beater and it seems Lockheed has already put their money where their mouth is
I agree but similar thinking had the USAF eliminating guns from aircraft in the 60s-70s which proved to be a terrible mistake.
I personally believe vector thrust maneuvering will only be seen in airshows and rarely in combat.
.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Glider
Captain
If you ask us nicely, we promise to sell you some Typhoons to replace the F15 in the air to air role just in case the F22 doesn't want to get dirty.
twoeagles
Senior Airman
My Lockheed retirement is safe - no worries! The F-35 will be everything it is promised to be. As for highly maneuverable, how maneuverable would it need to be if it shot you down before you detected it?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Right on!!!!
BTW - I check the status of my retirement about once a year, thanks for reminding me!
And not even then with the F-35. It doesn't have it
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It doesn't mean it hasn't been considered - HOWEVER "if" it was installed, it would affect over all performance.
Butters
Senior Airman
I'm going to address Joe's criticisms of my various 5th Gen-related posts as soon as I get the time, but until then here's something for the believers in the gospel of the holy trinity of stealth, BVR doctrine, and the do it all JSF.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
Just to clarify: The Rand Corp is neither left-wing nor an affiliate of CDI / APA. And whether you agree with their conclusions, or not, their study is worth the read.
JL
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
Just to clarify: The Rand Corp is neither left-wing nor an affiliate of CDI / APA. And whether you agree with their conclusions, or not, their study is worth the read.
JL
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Its a good read Butter, in fact its and excellent read but it was put out 2 years ago and there are a few things assumed and not addressed...
No MC numbers for the Chinese during this fictional conflict
This scenario assumes the Flanker works as advertised.
It gives info about WW2 and Korea with no relevance in today's world.
In the end it give an argument to build MORE F-22s and F-35s.
And I see other "facts" in that report that aren't true, but again have nothing to do with the report....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The same propaganda General Dynamics and the Pentagon gave us about the F-111 in the 1960's sounds quite similar to what were hearing about the F-35.
"Multi-role" = good at nothing, mediocre at best.
"Multi-role" = good at nothing, mediocre at best.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I remember the same things said about the F-15 and F-16 during the mid 70s.
Tell that to F/A-18 drivers who, during GW1 shot down MiGs with bombs on their stores, and then went on to bomb targets inside Iraq. in today's world, the F/A-18 and F-15E can be truly called "multi role" and these aircraft do "everything" well and have proven it in combat....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Nope. They were both designed from the onset as fighters, both with some influence on what went wrong with the F-111. Being a fighter also meant they could be used as an interceptor or fighter-bomber. But neither were designed to be a true bomber.
And yet it sacrificed something to get both. Its a great fighter, but its also not a true great bomber either.
The A6, A7 and A10 all performed well because they were designed from the outset to drop bombs as a primary mission.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I was talking about the bad press during the Carter administration where there were some that wanted to scrap the F-15 for being too costly and criticized the F-16 when it got airborne during high speed taxi tests.
BUT.......
Show us some documented negative evidence that the F-16, F-15E and F/A-18 suffered in their "multi role mode" operationaly during the past 15 or 20 years!!!!!
F-15E drives consider themselves bomber pilots that could "knife fight" as well (I work with a few of them).
One of the guys I work with who flew the F-15E said the roles were transparent with he exception with a little sacrifice in load out (depending on the mission) and range.
