This is a discussion on EA/18G Growler within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle
The SHornet has a top speed of 1190mph, the F-35 has a top speed of ...
The SHornet has a top speed of 1190mph, the F-35 has a top speed of more than 1200mph. The F-35 is more of a Mach 1.8 class aircraft not M1.6 as many people say.
The Su-30MKI carries around 3000 lbs more weapons than the SHornet but not much. The F-35 will carry +23000lbs of weapons more than anything else. The F/A-18 can be armed with many weapons of U.S. origin. With up to 11 weapons including AAMs, bombs and fuel tanks.
The Super Hornet is actually a heavy class fighter not a light weight fighter like the original F/A-18 Hornet. The Super Hornet is in the same class as the F-15, F-22 and F-35.
As far as I know the Russians don't have any SU-30s except for many 4-6 maybe 10 at the most, original SU-30s but are not Su-30MKI or Su-30MKM.
the super hornet isn't classified as a heavy class fighter,its a medium class fighter and it isnt anywhere near the F22.
I see that we are starting to split-hairs with the top-end speeds in discussion.
With respects Dog, information sourcing should be considered pertinent. One of the most valuable resources forums like this provide is - where to get reliable information?
Also, one of the chief complaints about the JSF program in general was that it would produce a 'Camel' (horse invented by committee), or a Swiss Army knife - something that does a little bit of everything, but nothing very well. The performance envelope of the F-35 was supposed to have sacrificed high speed dash capability in favor of Supercruise and Stealth. Admittedly a M0.2 (150 mph) difference isn't much, but having a high speed edge over the F/A-18 in any form does strengthen the Lightning's case as a worthy Hornet successor rather than a bean counter's compromise.
Look people LM has already sated the F-35 can go at least 1200mph. Now please tell how is that Mach 1.6? Every source I looked at says the F-18 has a top speed of 1190mph which is Mach 1.8 so that means the F-35 is slightly faster than the F-18. Mach 1.6 is really more like 1000mph, not 1190-1200mph.
Somebody here said the F-35 can't go Mach 1.8 becasue it only has one engine. WRONG!!!! The F-16 has only one engine rated for 28,000lbs of thrust and the F-16 can go Mach 2.
The F135 or F136 is the worlds most powerful fighter engine ever built with 40,000lbs of thrust. I was reading an article once saying when the F-35 is in just military thrust a F-16 has to kick in full afterburner just to keep up. The F-35 pilots say the F-35 performs just like an F-22 but with the size of an F-16. The F-35 has much more acceleration then any current fighter.
1) Mach number data is normally quoted at "sea level". Mach numbers will vary with altitude.
2) Actual parameter data for combat aircraft is classified. I doubt many of us have access to that and it wouldn't be public.
3) Much of the Mach data is for a "clean configuration". For the F-22 and F-35 that may be seen as okay, but how many sortie aircraft have you seen leaving leaving the nest clean? (If you did they may have forgot something!).
4) Although fighters may jettison drop tanks etc. to get cleaner for ACM, I feel there are multiple factors to consider other than top-end speed.
The biggest thing about the F-35 is that there are so many rumors that it is not maneuverable, but then again it would not matter and that the F-35 can lock on to target 360 degrees around it. But this all started when the Aussies had doubts about the F-35 that is why sooo many people have been in question of it. Right now I am very curious about the maneuverability of the F-35 the Lockheed videos on it's fight do not reveal anything at all.
The only people who seem to be worried about the Lightning IIs being a possible flop are the Australians. Every other country involved in the contract thinks otherwise, or are doing their very best to avoid a flop. It seems Goon and company have much more intellect in Australia, whereas every one else thinks they're fools.
A nation the size of Australia with a limited niumber of aircraft needs an aircraft that can bomb as well as fight, one that can especially carry harpoons in the maritime strike role. What Australia does not need is the best interceptor, never has and never will. Unfortunately the aircraft Australia does not need is the Raptor. The aircraft that fits the billing is the Lightning IIs, no matter what nonsense Goon and company says....
Last edited by Sea Toby; April 22nd, 2008 at 05:44 AM.
The only people who seem to be worried about the Lightning IIs being a possible flop are the Australians. Every other country involved in the contract thinks otherwise, or are doing their very best to avoid a flop. It seems Goon and company have much more intellect in Australia, whereas every one else thinks they're fools.
sorry, thats a complete misread of the situation in australia.
the people who are voluble in australlia who are anti-JSF also include a significant swathe of individuals who have a beef with either ADF or RAAF. They have been courting the broadsheet jouno's with a passion.
the more sophisticated in aust have ignored their chatterings. in fact, quite a few of the broadsheet jounos who were spinning the APA mantra have been in contact with the specialist media for other opinions and have been discovering that they might have been a tad too gullible in accepting what was dished up to them.
you need to be local to get a clear understanding of the mechanics of this. don't confuse newspaper outcries with the general sophistication levels of those charged with making sensible decisions.
the newspapers got caught out in a colour and movement approach by a vocal and decidedly selectively creative group of individuals - the media have gone noticeably quiet in the last few weeks, they know they've been "had"
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
The only people who seem to be worried about the Lightning IIs being a possible flop are the Australians. Every other country involved in the contract thinks otherwise, or are doing their very best to avoid a flop. It seems Goon and company have much more intellect in Australia, whereas every one else thinks they're fools.
A nation the size of Australia with a limited niumber of aircraft needs an aircraft that can bomb as well as fight, one that can especially carry harpoons in the maritime strike role. What Australia does not need is the best interceptor, never has and never will. Unfortunately the aircraft Australia does not need is the Raptor. The aircraft that fits the billing is the Lightning IIs, no matter what nonsense Goon and company says....
Ah, the PROFESSIONAL military people in Australia aren't worried about the Lightning II's capability in either A2A or A2G/S operations.
Only those with an agenda to push are speaking out against this aircraft.
It's being designed to be an IMPROVEMENT over the F/A-18 in terms of slow speed maneuvreability and over the F-16 in terms of instantaneous turn rates and acceleration, with a sensor, avionics and EW suite a generation beyond anything else in the world and possessing an amazing operational range (on internal fuel as well!) for a tactical fighter of it's size AND it is one of only 2 VERY low observable fighters in the world.
I have a quick question for you guys. I've been trying to find it at a couple of websites but couldn't. Could any one please tell me the payload capacity of the F-35.
Thanks
I have a quick question for you guys. I've been trying to find it at a couple of websites but couldn't. Could any one please tell me the payload capacity of the F-35.
Thanks
Weapons payloads for the F-35A/C are about 18,000 lbs and 15,000 lbs for the F-35B. Note this includes internal bay and external pylons. For internal weapons load only, the payload will be just under 6,000 lbs (two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAM guided bombs)
I have a quick question for you guys. I've been trying to find it at a couple of websites but couldn't. Could any one please tell me the payload capacity of the F-35.
Thanks
Isn't this the FA/18G (sic) thread?
There's an F-35 thread running somewhere that this question would be better placed on.
________________
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
