Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread

[19K11]

A nice pic.

[haavarla]

Hey, thats pic is awsome!
Are there more pics with the F-35 carrying external load?

[drabslab]

A nice pic.

Indeed, a very nice picture, also one that demonstrates two major weaknesses of the whole stealth idea:

- external stores ruin stealth

- no matter how stealthy the jet, the obligatory tanker certainly is not

[drabslab]

Well not useless (you're talking about the CVFs here aren't you?).
just needs to avoid getting into a turning fight

This is something the US has been trying in about every conflict since WW II.

It often went another way!

[jbritchford]

But it does give you options.

They needn't fly with external stores in the first few days of operations when stealth is most important, once the threat is lifted then external stores can be used.

Also, stealthy external weapons pods have already started developments for legacy aircraft to make them harder to detect.

[Nicolas10]

But it does give you options.

They needn't fly with external stores in the first few days of operations when stealth is most important, once the threat is lifted then external stores can be used.

Also, stealthy external weapons pods have already started developments for legacy aircraft to make them harder to detect.

Or you send in Stealthy UCAVS for most hairy operations of the first few days, accompanied with stand off missiles like Storm Shadow or JASSM-ER launch from normal platforms.

F35 is overkill for anything else that the first few days of war, and yet you pay for the extra cost for all peace time flying & all missions when you don't need stealth.

I see the USN seeing that and retainging a UCAV+SH combo.

Nic

[mrmalaya]

Far more likely they see that and retain the F35C and a UCAV.

Like France will retain Rafale and a UCAV, and like the USMC will retain the F35B and operate the new UK VSTOL UCAV

Most of the time the F35 with advanced weapons will be far far more than its operators need.

[SpudmanWP]

Indeed, a very nice picture, also one that demonstrates two major weaknesses of the whole stealth idea:

- external stores ruin stealth

Internal-Only is only needed for the most dangerous missions.

- no matter how stealthy the jet, the obligatory tanker certainly is not

Which is why they will be 600+ miles away from the action. Good luck finding them and then getting to them.

[Sens]

Which is why they will be 600+ miles away from the action. Good luck finding them and then getting to them.

They will operate from known ABs. To destroy the "Hornets" you have to destroy their "nest". A serious opponent will not allow the US-forces to start the action under optimum conditions.

[SpudmanWP]

They will operate from known ABs. To destroy the "Hornets" you have to destroy their "nest". A serious opponent will not allow the US-forces to start the action under optimum conditions.

Seriously?? Those IFR assets could come from CONUS, good luck stopping those.

[Sens]

Seriously?? Those IFR assets could come from CONUS, good luck stopping those.

A few B-1B, B-2A maybe and they will inflict some limited temporary damage but they will not win a ground-war. Even something limited like the Iran is a problem the claims of US military in mind. The F-35 is a tactical tool to be operated close to the theater.

[SpudmanWP]

Initial F-35s would be IFR'd in and would also come from carriers if there was a serious threat of ABs being taken out. Besides, what are you going to take them out with? Anything short of a nuke has defenses designed to stop it.

You can't stop IFR.

Assuming that the target nation even has the ability to go after IFR AB (or the IFR assets them selves), the first few days IFR could come from CONUS. These days are spent taking out the airfields close to the border.

After that when enemy assets have to come from deep in-country (assuming those fields are safe from targeting), IFR assets can be based closer to the front to support a more intensive campaign. Even then, those IFR bases could be well over 1000nm outside the range of any assets that could reach them.

[obligatory]

A rather big deal is if the B has the serviceability to operate from highly improvised airfields,
has there been any notion of operating them in that way ?

[Bluewings]

SpudmanWP :

Which is why they will be 600+ miles away from the action

You can 't have tankers so far away from the action . The F-35 (on internal fuel) doesn 't have the range to go in and come back . Re-check your numbers .

Cheers .

[SpudmanWP]

If the A has the combat radius (ie taking off from an airstrip, attaining altitude, roundtrip to target, landing) of 600+nm, then it certainly can do the same (if not a bit more) without spending the fuel to gain altitude.

[J-20 Hotdog]

Hey, thats pic is awsome!
Are there more pics with the F-35 carrying external load?

here you go


do you have a picture of Pak-fa with external load in exchange?

[SpudmanWP]

A rather big deal is if the B has the serviceability to operate from highly improvised airfields, has there been any notion of operating them in that way ?

This is EXACTLY what the B was designed to do.

Google F-35B austere basing

The EAF and VTOL Pad AM-2 surfaces are representative of current US Marine Corps austere/forward deployed basing capabilities. These surfaces will be used to test F-35B compatibility during Short Takeoff (STO), Vertical Landing (VL), and Slow Landing (SL).

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/in...5-6838819A5C10

The F-35B supports the Marine Corps’ tactical and operational needs for close air support in austere conditions and locations that may be inaccessible to traditional fighters.

http://www.marines.mil/unit/2ndMAW/P...x#.T5iyaFKQm70

The F-35B uses a specially-designed shaft-driven lift fan system to achieve vertical lift and will be able to operate from ship-to-shore and austere battlefield locations.

http://www.eglin.af.mil/library/fact...t.asp?id=15686

STOVL capability gives the F-35B the unique capability to operate from a variety of ships, roads and austere bases near frontline combat zones, greatly enhancing sortie generation rates. The unmatched basing of the F-35B – ashore and afloat –provides more employment flexibility in any scenario.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...-34324f003.pdf

[obligatory]

Thanks.
IMO B is more survivable than A for smaller nations facing a much stronger AF,
they won't be able to keep up CAP far out anyway so range isn't such a set back,
the catch is the cost, so it will only fit small countries with lotsa cash.

[Geoff_B]

The crux of the matter is STOVL is niche ability only really there for users who really need it, the RAF got the Harrier to provide close air support in West Germany to support the BAOR as the RAF Germany airbases would be battered in in the first strikes by Warsaw pact forces along with the other NATO airbases. The RN, Spain & Italy got Harriers as they didn't have carriers large enougth to carry conventional carrier aircraft. The USMC need it as their mission is expeditionary warfare also operating from ships incapable of using conventional carrier aircraft.

They only complement mainstream conventional aircraft, they are not a viable alternative to them, if they were then countries would be opting for the B over the A !.

To be honest if LM had been able to keep to its promises then the B would have been much closer to the A in performance and capability which could have tempted more users

[Bluewings]

SpudmanWP :

If the A has the combat radius (ie taking off from an airstrip, attaining altitude, roundtrip to target, landing) of 600+nm, then it certainly can do the same (if not a bit more) without spending the fuel to gain altitude.

That 's right but don 't forget the safety margin , any aircraft with less than 1,5 Ton of fuel left is approaching the "Bingo" stage and is usualy seen as a non-combat capable aircraft from the chain of command .

Cheers .

[SpudmanWP]

The safety margin is likely compensated for by the fuel saved in not needing to gain altitude after takeoff.

[TooCool_12f]

er, the safety margin includes much more than the fuel spared for "not having to climb to altitude"...

either that, or you have even less endurance than the first mig29 versions

[obligatory]

SpudmanWP :


That 's right but don 't forget the safety margin , any aircraft with less than 1,5 Ton of fuel left is approaching the "Bingo" stage and is usualy seen as a non-combat capable aircraft from the chain of command .

Cheers .

Wrong thinking, it depend how much the aircraft consume/minute.
A space shuttle and a Viper consume entirely different amount of fuel,
and so the space shuttle need several times magnitudes more Ton of safety.

Better say 15 minute cruise safety, and then calculate how much fuel is needed for that

[TooCool_12f]

civilian minimums are 20 min for day VFR and 45' for night. (and this is what you MUST still have in your fuel tank after you landed)... I'm not sure that the military go below that.

[Bluewings]

They don 't .

Cheers .

[Sens]

They do and did before except those not bound to some NATO-standard. Romania operates MiG-21s and Hungary Gripen f.e. and that have to call Bingo after take-off nearly. :diablo:
In general it is ~10 minutes loiter reserve to bring back or to become an incident not doing so. As someone claimed before it differs for every fighter and enviroment.

[LowObservable]

You are forgetting about EODAS. If you are close enough to be in a turning fight, then you are likely within the NEZ of the Aim-120D regardless of the launch angle.

So are the other members of the shooter's formation.

Neither AIM-120D nor EO-DAS are magic. The former requires more time to turn off-boresight than a thrust-vectoring HOBS missile and I believe the seeker gimbal is +-45 degrees. The latter is trying to maintain a dynamic 3D situational picture with only Az-El position and rate data. Plus the standard missile datalink functions only within the fighter radar FOV, as far as I know.

Re: Austere landings - 2 free internetz awarded to anyone producing a pic of an F-35B doing an ashore VL on anything other than concrete protected by AM-2.

[TooCool_12f]

They do and did before except those not bound to some NATO-standard. Romania operates MiG-21s and Hungary Gripen f.e. and that have to call Bingo after take-off nearly. :diablo:
In general it is ~10 minutes loiter reserve to bring back or to become an incident not doing so. As someone claimed before it differs for every fighter and enviroment.

in french air force:

when you land, you have to have the fuel to fly to your diversion base, plus the "security reserve" which is:

in VFR:

reserve for abort landing (so take off again) and economic cruise of 10min,

in IFR:

fuel for a ground controlled approach (GCA), GCA go around and one last abort and climb for ejection


basically, significantly more than just 20 min cruise

[swerve]

Re: Austere landings - 2 free internetz awarded to anyone producing a pic of an F-35B doing an ashore VL on anything other than concrete protected by AM-2.

Why would it do a vertical landing if it had an austere airstrip, or even a road base?

[LowObservable]

Swerve - Sure, you can do an RVL. But if it is a slow-roller, there are still ground impact issues, and the faster it is, the more other issues (like getting weight on wheels for braking and steering, and TD point scatter) become important. And VL allows you to recover off your primary runway, which is useful if you have only one RW.