To: sukhoi-30mki
Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb (22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight ratio for a new fighter. At that weight and with just 460 sq ft (43 m2) of wing area for the air force and Marine Corps variants, it will have a wing-loading of 108 lb per square foot. Fighters need large wings relative to their weight to enable them to manoeuvre and survive.This is the part that worries me because it is obviously true. The F-35 doesn't 'look' like a dogfighter & the engine thrust is just insufficient for the weight (which always increases as an aircraft is developed). I also don't envision the USAF ops planners sending this plane in low to support the troops. Even the low-end cost estimates make this plane too expensive to risk in that manner. It will never replace the A-10.
21 posted on
09/11/2008 7:13:33 AM PDT by
Tallguy
("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
To: Tallguy
I’d rather see the F35 side talk to these seemingly weak flight characteristics before they attack the study author bias.
24 posted on
09/11/2008 7:25:40 AM PDT by
zek157
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson