|
samboct -> RE: Gates proposes defense cuts (4/6/2009 9:25:50 PM)
|
Ken
Check the specs on Wikipedia of both the F-105 and the F-35- the Aussies aren't far off. The max take off weight of the F-35 is given as 60,000 lbs. It has 26,000 lbs of thrust without afterburner- 40,000 lbs with. The wing loading of the airplane is at 44,000 lbs is 91.4 lbs/sq ft. I think I've got this right- they used loaded weight for wing loading, not max take off- which is actually commonly used for aircraft in wartime. At 60,000 lbs, the airplanes wing loading is 136 lbs/sq. ft- which is the same as the Thud's at max TO weight.
To be accurate- there are three parameters that must be dealt with in terms of getting off a carrier- wing loading, thrust, and total weight. Wing loading determines how fast the airplane has to fly to lift off- the higher the number the worse. The thrust of the F-35 is the same as the Thud- unless you use afterburner- and if you use afterburner to take off- your range drops considerably. I'll lay long odds the F-14 with its swing wing can take off much slower than the F-35- and I wouldn't be surprised if it has a higher thrust/weight ratio.
Check the range on the F-35. The combat range of the airplane is less than 600 miles- which means it can probably stay airborne for 2 hours or so with some margin for combat. However, jets drink fuel down low (talk to the ghost of Sidi Carnot)- which means this thing can't stay on station for more than a few minutes- tops. I think the range is LOWER than the Thud- and that airplane needed a lot of refueling when used in Viet Nam. Short range aircraft only work when you've got to fight conveniently close. Want a good little airplane that was very successful in the role? Look at the A-4 Skyhawk specs- which by the way has a far lower wing loading and is probably much more maneuvrable. Bear in mind that one of the aircraft the F-35 is supposed to replace is the A-10- and this fuel guzzling turkey probably isn't as maneuvrable and certainly doesn't have the loiter capability or the armor to resist ground fire of the A-10.
In terms of my comments being at variance-let me point out that the most numerous bombing aircraft in the inventory when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was the B-18- an aircraft that never flew on a bombing mission but was only used for coastal patrols- and was a complete turkey. Do you think in 1941 there were articles in the press saying the airplane was a sick joke? Congress doesn't buy airplanes saying that they're turkeys- and defense contractors are very good about presenting a very limited picture of their products utility. Its only us airplane nuts that have read history and understand design compromises that realize that many of the aircraft in our inventory are idiotic.
Remember in Viet Nam when nearly all the aircraft in the USAF inventory had missiles- but no guns. The Air Force had to use a Navy airplane- the Phantom to fight the much lighter Migs because they didn't have anything that could dogfight. (OK, F-8 aside.) Air to air missiles didn't work too well in combat and I doubt things have changed all that much- which is why modern day fighters carry guns. My hunch is that stealth is the 21st century version of the idea that missiles are all that's needed.
Want another example? Look at the B-2. There's a reason they only built 2 dozen of them (OK one less)- the airplane is far more expensive and not as capable as the B-52. While stealth is widely touted as the aircraft's raison d'etre as an all weather bomber- the reality is quite different. It's a foul weather/night bomber only- in broad daylight it couldn't survive against a Korean era F-86 that uses machine guns and has NO radar. (and you can buy them for less than a $1 million a throw- or at least Mig 15s are in that price range.) What are you supposed to do- wait till its dark or cloudy out till you can bomb a nogoodnik?
Sam
|
|
|
|
