Air Force F-35 filmed with Red Epic

[Tom Hendricks]

I know that the F-35 has a dubious record so far, it has been much maligned here and other places. On a side note, I was a supporter of Boeings X-32 in the Joint Strike Fighter contest. With that said, here is a pretty cool HD video of the F-35 in action shot with the Red Epic 5K.

http://vimeo.com/42805692

 

[CorporalClegg]

Pretty cool vid.

I'm with you on the X-32 though.

I've also thought for a long time the Black Widow would have been the better choice over the F-22. I think in the long run it would have been MUCH cheaper, and, despite what the "numbers" imply, anecdotal evidence suggests the YF-23 outperformed the YF-22 in tests. And the whole super cruise thing is dubious at best.

In both cases, I think the decisions ultimately came down to Lockheed's enormous Lobby.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

I have the upmost respect for Lockheed Martin but I agree with you whole heartedly. I too though that the YF-23 was superior to the F-22, but I wan't as puzzled by the choice as I was with the F-35 over the X-32.

Pretty cool vid.

I'm with you on the X-32 though.

I've also thought for a long time the Black Widow would have been the better choice over the F-22. I think in the long run it would have been MUCH cheaper, and, despite what the "numbers" imply, anecdotal evidence suggests the YF-23 outperformed the YF-22 in tests. And the whole super cruise thing is dubious at best.

In both cases, I think the decisions ultimately came down to Lockheed's enormous Lobby.

 

[Knight Templar]

Pretty cool vid.

I'm with you on the X-32 though.

I've also thought for a long time the Black Widow would have been the better choice over the F-22. I think in the long run it would have been MUCH cheaper, and, despite what the "numbers" imply, anecdotal evidence suggests the YF-23 outperformed the YF-22 in tests. And the whole super cruise thing is dubious at best.

In both cases, I think the decisions ultimately came down to Lockheed's enormous Lobby.

The decision in favor of the F-22 Raptor over the F-23 Black Widow came down to the following:

The F-23 Black Widow was considerably faster and stealthier than the F-22 Raptor

but.

1) The Raptor looks like a stealthy version of the Air Forces beloved F-15 Eagle.

2) Lockheed had delivered the F-117A on schedule and UNDER budget while Northrop had struggled with the B-2 bomber program (not entirely their fault).

3) The F-23 had a weapons bay design where the weapons were stacked vertically and rotated into position. Air Force evaluators feared that if a weapon failed to launch during combat that it could block the remaining weapons in the bay from being able to launch as well.

 

[kryhvk]

Great clip, thanks. Jet porn in HD is always appreciated.

And the whole super cruise thing is dubious at best.

The airframe and powerplant characteristics necessary for supercruise translate into an awful lot more than top speed -- transonic acceleration, for one. Nobody measures a car by its top speed and the metric isn't that much more useful for combat aircraft.

Kinematics aside, supercruise is exceptionally useful for hunting down cruise missiles and pretty much anything else operating in the high-subsonic regime: UCAVs, ISR assets, etc. The alternative -- afterburner -- will magnify the thermal signature enormously with deleterious consequences for survivability. On the offensive side supercruise allows for boosted weapons range again without resort to afterburner.

 

[Knight Templar]

Technically, the great thing about "supercruise" is it allows sustained supersonic speeds (about Mach 1.5) WITHOUT using the afterburners. This means a serious increase in range for the amount of fuel used and higher initial velocity for your air to air missiles when they are launched, giving them greater closing velocity and range.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

There was that 32 vs. 35 documentary on Discovery a while back. The X-32 was one UGLY mofo, but it apparently got the job done. Had they worked out the kinks in th esingle piece wing, it could have been a serious savings over the ongoing problems with the F-35. Frankly, I was a supporter of the F-35 being the next-generation fighter for my RCAF; but the more I read into it, the less I like it as the best choice for what we need. At this point I'd rather take a bunch of newbuild Super Hornets (or perhaps whatever Saab is cooking up) over the Lightning.

And let us not forget the ongoing life support problems with the F-22...

Mark

 

[kryhvk]

Technically, the great thing about "supercruise" is it allows sustained supersonic speeds (about Mach 1.5) WITHOUT using the afterburners.

There are two or three different definitions of supercruise floating around. Lockmart goes with the Mach 1.5 definition because that makes the F-22 the only supercruise-capable combat aircraft.

To the extent that 'supercruise' is a categorical capability deserving of a specific label, however, either Mach 1.0 or, better yet, Mach 1.2 w/o afterburner is the better criterion. The former matches a property of the external environment (the speed of sound) whereas the latter marks the point at which the buffeting and other effects accompanying transonic flight diminish, thereby marking the onset of a desirable flight regime and one with meaningful advantages over a whole host of platforms limited to the high-subsonic regime: airliners, tankers, ISR assets, UAVs, cruise missiles, etc. etc.

Of course with the (rather more sensible) criterion of Mach 1.2 applied, there are a whole host of aircraft other than the F-22 which are capable of supercruise: Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen NG, Su-35, possibly J-10/B also. Which is why LockMart doesn't use that criterion.

To be clear: that the F-22 is the most kinematically impressive aircraft in existence is not to be doubted. More than simply being able to go faster than other aircraft on dry thrust, its supercruise characteristics are independent of weapons load, whereas all of the aformentioned platforms are limited to supercruise in at most moderate air-to-air configurations without EFTs. These, however -- or perhaps a better example: however much faster or slower on dry thrust PAK-FA turns out to be than F-22 -- are merely incremental differences whereas the difference between all supercruise capable platforms (by the Mach 1.2 criterion) and non-supercruise capable platforms is a categorical difference: an F-16 cannot chase down an airliner at cruise altitude without afterburner, a Typhoon can.

This means a serious increase in range for the amount of fuel used

Relative to afterburner, yes; relative to subsonic flight, no. Subsonic is still where it's at as far as fuel efficiency is concerned, which is why in practice F-22s don't spend much more time supersonic than F-15s do, i.e. almost none. I suspect this is why CorporalClegg described it as a 'dubious' capability.

 

[kryhvk]

Frankly, I was a supporter of the F-35 being the next-generation fighter for my RCAF; but the more I read into it, the less I like it as the best choice for what we need. At this point I'd rather take a bunch of newbuild Super Hornets (or perhaps whatever Saab is cooking up) over the Lightning.

Gripen NG or Flygsystem 2025? The latter is rather too far in the distance I think. Turkey/TAI has recently brought Saab on board to assist in developing their own indigenous combat aircraft, it will be interesting to see what effect that has on Flygsystem 2025 planning/development.

Gripen NG on the other hand has an awful lot to recommend it. Its range characteristics with light/moderate loads are ridiculously good for an aircraft of its size; it is far cheaper to operate (and cheaper to acquire too) than any platform with comparable range. Saab claims 50% of *F-16* operating costs, to say nothing of larger platforms like Super Hornet and F-35.

In terms of fulfilling Canada's needs (i.e. air patrol/policing/defense) I think any of the Eurocans would be a better choice than the F-35, and Gripen NG is probably the most compelling of those across the overall operational/financial/political matrix.

The only problem, of course, is that it doesn't slot nearly as well as the F-35 into 'coalition operations' on the other side of the world.

 

[Knight Templar]

In my opinion (and others) the U.S. should cancel the F-35 and buy a lot more F-22s. A navalized F-22 for the U.S. Navy.

Now, the problems has been that various allies of the U.S. want to fly F-35s like the U.K. and the U.S. has been unwilling to sell F-22s because of technology transfer issues.

I think that is bs. Are we really going to worry about the British, Spanish, Italians, or Japanese giving away U.S. military technology? I don't think so. We should just sell them F-22s at a reasonable price and cancel the F-35s entirely.

 

[kryhvk]

In my opinion (and others) the U.S. should cancel the F-35 and buy a lot more F-22s.

I agree that it was a mistake to truncate F-22 production under 300 units, but restarting production isn't really a viable option. Much $$$ required.

Funnily enough one of the proposals USAF was looking at back in the pre-JSF days was basically an F-16 fuselage mated to an F-22 wing with an F119 powerplant. If that proposal had gone ahead not only would the program have delivered an arguably superior platform earlier and cheaper, but the shared powerplant and wing structure would've made the economics of the F-22 fleet rather more favourable also, reducing the likelihood of its truncation.

A navalized F-22 for the U.S. Navy.

They tried this with NATF. Perhaps they should've perservered, but again it's too late for that now.

Realistically USN doesn't need any new platform at this juncture: further investment in Super Hornet would suffice coupled with continued development of X-47B and the bringing forward of F/A-XX.

Now, the problems has been that various allies of the U.S. want to fly F-35s like the U.K. and the U.S. has been unwilling to sell F-22s because of technology transfer issues.

I think that is bs.

It is bullshit, but it's legislative bullshit that requires the expenditure of political capital to undo. The administration can't even get the Navy-backed Law of the Sea treaty through.

Are we really going to worry about the British, Spanish, Italians, or Japanese giving away U.S. military technology? I don't think so. We should just sell them F-22s at a reasonable price and cancel the F-35s entirely.

Even if it were on the table the British, Spanish, and Italians don't want the F-22. Refusing Japan was silly tho. South Korea would be interested in it, the Saudis too. And Israel will buy anything with American money.