F35 cost goes up.

Chad Irby wrote:

:My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
:about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.

Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
INTERNAL FUEL. Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range
than the Hornet. Now, would you like to rethink that remark?

So let's go with FAS as a source. Combat radius for the F-35 is given
as "600+ nautical miles". Combat radius for the F/A-18C/D is given
with the statement of "Depending on the mission and loading, combat
radius is greater than 500 nautical miles". Combat radius of the
Super Hornet is given as "up to 40% greater than the C/D", which when
you work the math out gives 700+ nautical miles.

You figure it out.

:If it misses its range by as much as five or ten percent, it will still
:have a *much* higher unrefueled range than the F-18.

There hasn't been an airplane designated as "F-18" since 1987. Using
FAS for numbers, it appears that the Super Hornet already has more
range than the F-35 by a good margin, even if the F-35 meets spec.

:Since I've already *agreed* that it could miss by a small amount, and
:since you keep *arguing* about it, that means you must disagree with
:those numbers.
:
:So pick a number. What's the *worst* you think it could be?
:
:If it's not more than about five or ten percent, then you're arguing
:with Fred on this one, not me...

Well, no, because you persist in misunderstanding what I'm saying. Do
you believe the numbers I give above? I don't, for typical combat
missions. The range for F/A-18 is grossly overstated in that case
(for both variants). SO IS THAT OF THE F-35! And I expect that games
are going to have to be played to meet the spec (no load, most
favourable flight regime, etc) once all the issues with the airplane
(in everything but the baseline version) get shaken out in real
flights of real articles crashing onto real aircraft carriers and/or
taking off from real parking lots.

You get it now?

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Scott Ferrin wrote:
:
: :I think he's referring to the comment *way* back up the thread that
: :suggested the F-35C wouldn't have the range of a Super Hornet and that
: :it's range would have to be cut by 33% to be as low as the Hornet's.
:
: I'm sure he is, but that's simply wrong.
:
:No, that's basically what they've been using at the Navy.

So why did you point to FAS for numbers? Where are these Navy
numbers?

: First normalize the numbers.
: Equal percentage of load, fuel, same flight profiles, etc.
:
:The Navy uses a standard mission profile. It's a "high-low-high" attack
:mission with a standard armament load (two 1000 pound bombs) that can
:recover on the same ship it launches from (the FA-18E/F supposedly can't
:recover from an abort with a max load, and has to dump some weapons or
:fuel to manage a landing). The standard mission profile is what I've
:been going by.

You couldn't prove it by what you've said so far. Oh, just as a 'by
the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover from an abort with max
load without dumping. F-35C will not be any different in this regard.
One of the advantages of the Super Hornet over the Hornet is the MUCH
larger 'bring back' it is capable of.

You tell me. You're taking off with a pair of JSOW (1000 lb-class
weapons), a pair of AAMRAM, and full internal fuel in an F/A-18C/D.
Stuff breaks on takeoff. Can you land in that configuration?

Now try the same thing in a Super Hornet. Can you land in that
configuration?

Ok, now let's talk about the F-35C.

:If you go with nonstandard profiles, the FA-18 E/F could have a higher
:range (as much as 500 miles, with extreme fuel loads and no chance of
:recovery in a short abort), but so would the F-35 (more internal fuel).

Horse manure! Trot out your tables for 'bring back' of the F-35C and
we'll talk. Until then, you're just blowing smoke and hoping it will
obscure the man behind the curtain.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:21:26 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

You don't need a few thousand hours on an airframe to figure out the
fuel usage. It's a fairly simple thing called "math."

Once you know what the drag is, sure. But predicting the drag is
fraught with error, as previous aircraft have shown. The usual
failure in prediction is trim angle of attack. It's wrong, which
means that the horizontal is set at the wrong angle, so the trim drag
is higher than predicted and the fuel usage is, too.

I'm trying to remember which airplane it was that was sweating out
something like 250 drag counts between predicted and as-flown a while
back. They were moving antennas, fidgeting with the cg to change the
trim angle, smoothing the skin--all kinds of stuff. It must have been
the F-16, I guess.

That difference is between the theory of a plane on the drawing board
and one in the air. They're *flying* F-35 airframes.

Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
airframe and the production model.

This sounds much more reasonable. While I'm certainly no expert
in these matters I'd be pretty surprised if these highly paid
engineers and designers made such a horrendous error as to result
in a one third higher than expected drag figure.
--

-Gord.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:38:22 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

:My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
:about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.

Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
INTERNAL FUEL. Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range
than the Hornet. Now, would you like to rethink that remark?

So let's go with FAS as a source. Combat radius for the F-35 is given
as "600+ nautical miles". Combat radius for the F/A-18C/D is given
with the statement of "Depending on the mission and loading, combat
radius is greater than 500 nautical miles". Combat radius of the
Super Hornet is given as "up to 40% greater than the C/D", which when
you work the math out gives 700+ nautical miles.

You figure it out.

As much as I like that site and globalsecurity.org, you have to take
some of what they say with a huge grain of salt. According to them
the F-15 can do 1,875 mph on the deck. :-)

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Wake up, Chad. It doesn't even have to 'miss'. What range is given
: for it? Where? What load conditions? How much fuel? Any tanks?
: What assumptions about flight regime? How much 'draggier' is the 'big
: wing' (apparently enough to not give a range increase, if the
: 'handwaving' numbers are to be believed, since they don't call the C
: out separately (nor the B either, for that matter)).
:
:You know, I already explained the comparison. I explained where I got
:the numbers.

You've claimed several different provenances for your numbers. The
only explicit one was FAS. I posted elsewhere what you get using
their numbers - F-35 with shorter range than F/A-18E/F.

:And all you can manage is arguing against your *own* arguments.

Is English your second language? Are you part of that generation that
never actually learned how to read? Those are the only two excuses I
can find for your preceding statement.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Scott Ferrin wrote:

:On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:38:22 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Chad Irby wrote:
:
::My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
::about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.
:
:Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
:combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
:INTERNAL FUEL. Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range
:than the Hornet. Now, would you like to rethink that remark?
:
:So let's go with FAS as a source. Combat radius for the F-35 is given
:as "600+ nautical miles". Combat radius for the F/A-18C/D is given
:with the statement of "Depending on the mission and loading, combat
:radius is greater than 500 nautical miles". Combat radius of the
:Super Hornet is given as "up to 40% greater than the C/D", which when
:you work the math out gives 700+ nautical miles.
:
:You figure it out.
:
:As much as I like that site and globalsecurity.org, you have to take
:some of what they say with a huge grain of salt. According to them
:the F-15 can do 1,875 mph on the deck. :-)

I quite agree. In fact, I made that very point in the part of my
article you clipped. See the statement that began with "Do you
believe the numbers...."

--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

:My original point was that the F-35 is going to have a combat range
:about 50% higher than the F-18 E/F according to the specs.

Even the source you gave (FAS) doesn't claim that. What they say is
combat range about 50% higher than the F/A-18C/D (not Super Hornet) ON
INTERNAL FUEL.

What they say is that is has *twice* the range of the F-18C on internal
fuel, not 50% higher. And that's also fairly obviously referring *only*
to the F-35's internal fuel load, since the F-18C has a much smaller
fuel load without external tanks (the F-35 has a 7200 kilogram internal
fuel load, versus less than 5000 kilograms for the F-18), you're going
to have to explain that magical fuel economy for the F-18C, with much
older engines and all of that external armament and tankage hanging off
of the wings.

That's the other thing you're ignoring... when you're talking about a
useful mission, it's a clean but loaded F-35 versus an F-18 with several
tons of fuel and bombs and missiles hanging out there in the airflow.

And you were complaining about possible practical problems with the F-35
airframe causing huge changes in air friction, but blindly denying the
plain fact that the other planes have *huge* issues in this area.

Note that the Super Hornet has about 40% more range than the Hornet.

....on internal fuel, plus two drop tanks, plus weapons. And 40% more
range than 290 nm for an interdiction mission doesn't put it anywhere
near a 500 nm range.

See, you *can* (as I've said two or three times so far) make longer
missions, by carrying less weapons, or loading the plane to to point it
can't recover on the launching carrier without dropping stuff into the
water, but you can also do the same "extreme" missions with the F-35.

For a more normal mission, the F-35 is going to have that same huge
advantage over the F-18 that I've been talking about.

Now, would you like to rethink that remark?

Would you like to rethink yours?

Especially since the same sort of rationale for the long F-35 range is
the *same* rationale for the long F-18E/F range, but I don't see you
commenting on that...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Oh, just as a 'by the way', *NO* Navy combat aircraft can recover
from an abort with max load without dumping. F-35C will not be any
different in this regard.

Actually, that's one of the design parameters for the aircraft.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

Those drag changes don't make for a 33% change in performance. The
problems with the F-16 were over a 5% to 10% range, and that was between
the design and the flying airframe, not between the early flying
airframe and the production model.

This sounds much more reasonable. While I'm certainly no expert
in these matters I'd be pretty surprised if these highly paid
engineers and designers made such a horrendous error as to result
in a one third higher than expected drag figure.

Tell it to Fred. He's magically sure that the F-35 is going to be a
disaster of Biblical proportions...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

You've claimed several different provenances for your numbers. The
only explicit one was FAS.

Is English your second language? Are you part of that generation that
never actually learned how to read? Those are the only two excuses I
can find for your preceding statement.

Funny you should mention this.

In what part of English is "twice" the same as "50% higher?"

That's what *you* claimed to have read off of that FAS site.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.