Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 16 of 45 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718192026 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 1333

Thread: F-35 Debate thread (2)

  1. #451
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,261
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    It was such utter tosh Rand denied it soon after it came to light. Recent testing like the high AOA, SC, above m1.6, 50k,etc also put this issue to rest.
    Don't be ridiculous. The bird can neither supercruise, nor can it get to M1.6 as a tactically reasonable capability. Your once-in-a-lifetime-for-a-minute-and-half "specs" are worth hardly the sheet of paper they are printed on. The F-35s will spend 99% of their flying time at subsonic speeds and that is where they belong.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Yes, see recent Australian testimony for the details at http://tinyurl.com/kzz8nsd
    The link does not seem to open but I will find time to look it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    The only official announcements have been ‘has meet or exceeded spec’, is durable, aspects headed to F-22, etc. There has not been any bad news regarding the VLO aspects of the F-35.
    There has not been any useful data published regarding the VLO aspects of the F-35 in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    What about a greater than 6:1 LER while being outnumbered in a 4:8 scenario vs “Advanced Red Air” does not make it a good A2A performer?
    Oh, that says a lot. Every single plane manufacturer claims the same from the simulations. What exactly is there known about the parameters of the Advanced Red Air? They can be easily be adjusted to get the politically correct result everytime..

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    What about an official statement of SC at m1.2 for 125 miles (as part of an overall flight profile) is unclear? Obviously it’s not going to spend a lot of time in SC (neither does the F-22). The question was “is it possible”.
    I've said it clearly before. The fact that its SC range is limited by something else than fuel reserve clearly indicates that the speed keeps dropping = the F-35 cannot sustain SS speed = no SC capability. Which part of this do you still fail to grasp?

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Only the Gripen is cheaper and yes, when you look at the whole picture, the F-35 wins every time. Go read they whole section in that Australian report on the JSF as it’s very enlightening.
    All Eurocanards are cheaper to procure, quite significantly. The Indian order for 126 Rafales (incl. spares, tools and accessories) is set at roughly $10bil. Norwegians are getting their 52 F-35s for NOK 62.6 bil which is $10.8bil.

    Do your math before claiming nonsense, again.
    Last edited by MSphere; 22nd May 2013 at 00:57.

  2. #452
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Tu22m View Post
    Pls stop trolling Spud.

    I will show it with a graph what kinematic performance does and why it is so important.
    Attachment 216856
    As you see the superior avionics and VLO platform makes the track and detection range relatively impressive. But is it comes at the expense of poor kinematic performance this means that the enemy will have one advantage in launch speed and one in exit speed. In the case of EF 2000 its close to doubling the effective range of a Meteor. This is just physics and has nothing to do with avionics so far.

    Against old jets however it is a different story. What the ultra cool stuff like EOTS, stealth and radar does is increasing the blue bar for the F35. But unless the orange can keep up it is of no benefit at all.


    The can't climb, cant run argument is the relative performance of the F35 vs the competition. And that assesment is as correct as it gets.


    The F35 is not designed as a fighter jet. It is the most advanced attack jet made but without kinematic performance that's on par (or close to) the competition it simply isnt good enough as a fighter. And you can have as many cool gizmos as you please, but unless your orange bar is larger than the enemys blue bar it will be a fight where kinematics crown the winner.

    EDIT: The F35 should have a larger blue bar but I dont see if that matters.




    Hilarious, you made up a chart to illustrate your simplistic calculations... is APA hiring?

    Even if your numbers were accurate, and they aren't, a Eurofighter's hypothetical ability to achieve higher speeds or altitudes isn't worth much when fighting a threat it can't detect reliably at long range. You need significant space and time to accelerate and climb to an optimal release point for a BVR shot. That is plausible against a 4th generation aircraft that you can track 150km+ away, but you are never going to have time for that against an aircraft like an F-35.

    The far more likely scenario is that an aware F-35 will decide to engage or avoid the fight and it is the F-35 that would likely be able to accelerate and climb rather than the Eurofighter.

    Naturally that won't fit your world-view so you will just ignore it.

  3. #453
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Don't be ridiculous. The bird can neither supercruise, nor can it get to M1.6 as a tactically reasonable capability. Your once-in-a-lifetime-for-a-minute-and-half "specs" are worth hardly the sheet of paper they are printed on. The F-35s will spend 99% of their flying time at subsonic speeds and that is where they belong.
    There are contradictory reports on the F-35's supercruise performance. Everyone agrees that SC was not part of its requirements, but then neither was a vertical take off capability either.

    As for the M1.6 top speed, you have things completely backwards. Unlike almost every other fighter in service today, the F-35 can actually achieve its maximum speed while carrying a meaningful weapons load. Every 4th generation fighter suffers substantial performance degradation when carrying a combat load.


    Oh, that says a lot. Every single plane manufacturer claims the same from the simulations. What exactly is there known about the parameters of the Advanced Red Air? They can be easily be adjusted to get the politically correct result everytime..
    Lets get one thing straight for once. Those simulation results are not the product of LM, they are man in the loop tests performed with real operational pilots against the most realistic possible adversaries.

    All Eurocanards are cheaper to procure, quite significantly. The Indian order for 126 Rafales (incl. spares, tools and accessories) is set at roughly $10bil. Norwegians are getting their 52 F-35s for NOK 62.6 bil which is $10.8bil.

    Do your math before claiming nonsense, again.
    You have no business telling anyone to "do your math" if this is what you think passes for "math." Every export deal includes different terms and equipment. You can't expect to just childishly punch the numbers into a calculator and get an answer that is worth anything. Even if you could, there is no real price for the Indian deal because they haven't even been able to come to terms.

  4. #454
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2
    OWNED! lulz!

  5. #455
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,126
    The big issue with F-22 and F-35 replacing Teen series jets

    1. They're uglier than all the Teen series jets it's replacing





    VERSUS








    They're not even as cool and tough looking as A-10 or F-4






    COUNTRIES WITH UGLY OR NON TOUGH WINNING AIRCRAFT ALWAYS LOSE

  6. #456
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    nor can it get to M1.6 as a tactically reasonable capability.
    Google F-16 or F-18 and most of the pics show 2-3 tanks, 2-4 bombs and a couple of AAMs. The F-35 can do that at m1.6 and they cannot.

    The link does not seem to open but I will find time to look it up.
    Here is the original

    There has not been any useful data published regarding the VLO aspects of the F-35 in the first place.
    The only releases or quotes from the program have said that it has met the spec and the maintainers are loving it (vs the F-22).

    The fact that its SC range is limited by something else than fuel reserve clearly indicates that the speed keeps dropping = the F-35 cannot sustain SS speed = no SC capability. Which part of this do you still fail to grasp?
    Again? You seem to fail to understand that the FACT is that it can SC, regardless of how long. The details have not been released so your guessing at the times and reasons for its length are pitiful.

    It exceeded the spec, get over it.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 22nd May 2013 at 03:55.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  7. #457
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    With only 35% of testing complete, there would be quite a bit of information that would be released once further testing takes place, the envelope is expanded and the more and more number of fighters get into the hands of active USAF pilots...A lot of questions like , CAN IT SUPERCRUISE in a mission relevant way, HOW DOES IT TURN with a weapons load compared to legacy jets, HOWS THE ACCELERATION with mission relevant load...etc etc would be better answered by USAF and foreign pilots when they start getting into those envelopes...So far AOA and departure testing is complete and we have views on that for reference....Others would come in due course...possibly within the next 12-18 months..
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  8. #458
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Google F-16 or F-18 and most of the pics show 2-3 tanks, 2-4 bombs and a couple of AAMs. The F-35 can do that at m1.6 and they cannot
    Why are you comparing to its now outdated predecessors? You should compare to the possible competition. They can on the whole. Whats more important is how long it takes to get there.

    [/QUOTE]You seem to fail to understand that the FACT is that it can SC, regardless of how long. The details have not been released so your guessing at the times and reasons for its length are pitiful[/QUOTE]


    What tactical advantage does that provide? Not much. I think you should focus on its strengths than trying to mask the weaknesses.

    The aircraft has the potential to be excellent but I believe a lot more data is needed before anyone on here can make definitive assumptions about its capabilities. But I wish it did have better kinematic performance designed into it but nothing should be anywhere close to the raptor I guess

  9. #459
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    What tactical advantage does that provide? Not much. I think you should focus on its strengths than trying to mask the weaknesses.
    That is what i was suggesting as well, A capability to go supersonic at the limits of its altitude with 4 AMRAAM's is OK for recording achievement ( if it is further clarified by LMA or JPO during testing) however the F-35's mission profile is at medium altitude as thats where it would be operating for most missions....In the coming months and years greater number of F-35's would be in the hands of USAF combat pilots, instructor pilots etc , its envelope would alsos steadily expand...Once a large pool of pilots get the opportunity t test it out then we'd here a lot more about what sort of handling characteristics it possesses.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 22nd May 2013 at 07:56.
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  10. #460
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    995
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post


    Hilarious, you made up a chart to illustrate your simplistic calculations... is APA hiring?

    Even if your numbers were accurate, and they aren't, a Eurofighter's hypothetical ability to achieve higher speeds or altitudes isn't worth much when fighting a threat it can't detect reliably at long range. You need significant space and time to accelerate and climb to an optimal release point for a BVR shot. That is plausible against a 4th generation aircraft that you can track 150km+ away, but you are never going to have time for that against an aircraft like an F-35.

    The far more likely scenario is that an aware F-35 will decide to engage or avoid the fight and it is the F-35 that would likely be able to accelerate and climb rather than the Eurofighter.

    Naturally that won't fit your world-view so you will just ignore it.
    You forget that one is cruising at m 1,4 and the other needs +60 seconds of after burner usage to get close to that speed. But with afterburner the currently fielded IRST-systems will detect the target at some 80-90km. So the blue bar for the EF gets even longer while the orange bar for the F35 gets a little bit closer to the Eurofighters. But still the Eurofighter has a larger margin.

    But lets run the numbers, since you can't.
    25 sec burn, 1500m/s (theoretical max for METEOR) => 37,5
    Subtracting turn gives 15km + 22,5- EF distance travelled in opposite direction (7,5km) = 15 + 14,85 ~30km
    For the F35 it translates to 30km + 7,5km - 1,8km ~36 km or 20% longer effective range vs F35.

    If the missile travels at mach 4, or 1200m/s we get the following.
    EF 2000 as target, effectively engaged at ~ 23km
    F35 as target, effectively engaged at ~ 27km

    Of course + a little bit of glide flight in the end.

    The big difference here is that the Eurofighter will track and lock on the F35 at 90km (or at least track) instead of some 50km and that the F35 will get a better launch speed (that in this example is greatly exaggerated pro F35).

    The assumption I make here is that the F35 will have lower exit speed from the turn than the EF will because of the higher induced drag in the turning (because of poor lift/weight ratio => higher alpha => higher drag with a thrust/weight ratio that is too low to compensate for it). In other words, its based on physics and calculus. Now do you have anything but flamebaiting and smileys to add?


    Not that it changes the outcome in any way but some level of accuracy should be present.
    Last edited by Tu22m; 22nd May 2013 at 08:39.
    Lockheed Martin, because drop tanks stay during dogfights™

    The most useful link on the forum:

  11. #461
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    Against a faster (SC) non stealthy fighter, tactically the F-35 (add any other VLO Jet here) would want to use the detection and REACH advantage derived from its own Low observability and Modern Integrated active/passive sensors to position itself tactically before the opponent has the ability to track it and adjust its own position vis-a-vis the F-35. Point is to put yourself in a position that maximises your chances of getting an upper hand once you come into detecting and targeting range of the opponent. Once detected the F-35 would not be flying in a straight line towards the SC Non stealthy fighter. Depending upon TACTICS and doctrine based on its own performance it would then iniate an effort to get into a position that is advantageous to its weapon launching ability and that is disadvantageous to the opponent's weapons system ability...It would all come down to detection ranges and how much advantage the F-35 (F-22, pakfa or the J20) would realize compared to 4th and 4.5th gen fighters, basically amounting to the TIME the VLO Fighters have to act FREELY without having to worry about its opponent reacting to its every maneuver (countering) ... This would ofcourse depend upon the intel on the opponent and what fighter he is using and its performance vis a vis the F-35...Point is to avoid the targeting and weapons system SWEET spot of the enemy while trying to get the enemy in your's...Upon sensor detection (When the non VLO platform finally sees the F-35), the Non VLO fighter would have to reverse all the gains in tactical positioning made by the opponent (due to superior SA on it) as well as react to any move made by the VLO jet to take an offensive position vis-a-vis its targeting ability...The F-22's against F-15's use the fringing tactics against legact F-15C's quite well, Huge detection range advantage even compared to AESA F-15's means they can stay on the fringe of the F-15C and basically keep on turning freely keeping out of the F-15C's detecting ability ...Sometimes harrassing them to a point where they sneek up on them from behind ...
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 22nd May 2013 at 09:03.
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  12. #462
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    .. its envelope would alsos steadily expand...
    Those can only verify what they learned from within their given software limitations. Just with Tranche 2 hardware and from Block 3 software the full flying envelope of the F-35 becomes available to ordinary pilots from 2017.

  13. #463
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    Agreed, but as it expands more and more capabilities would be possible...The've just got 2B, it should open up some areas that were otherwise not open....Not sure if 2b/3i compared to 3F has limitations when it comes to handling and perfomrnace...Spud would be better positioned to answer such a question.
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  14. #464
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,077
    It has. To avoid misunderstandings about that. No customer of the F-35A see severe problems with its a2a capability and the related missions even the T-50 in mind.

  15. #465
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    It has. To avoid misunderstandings about that. No customer of the F-35A see severe problems with its a2a capability and the related missions even the T-50 in mind.
    According to the graphic posted by spudman, the envelope DOES expand from 1B to 2B and from 2b/3I to 3F.... So as more and more 2B jets begin to fly we'd hear more...Not to mention as testing expands in scope ..

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	blocks1_zpsccc5bbbf.jpg 
Views:	85 
Size:	51.6 KB 
ID:	216894

    Edit: Another graphic from Spudman's collection, Software 2b/3i takes speed up to mach 1.6 and altitude is at 40k ...3f takes altitude to 50k feet..

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F-3520Master20Plan.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	114.7 KB 
ID:	216897
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 22nd May 2013 at 12:54.
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  16. #466
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    995
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Against a faster (SC) non stealthy fighter, tactically the F-35 (add any other VLO Jet here) would want to use the detection and REACH advantage derived from its own Low observability and Modern Integrated active/passive sensors to position itself tactically before the opponent has the ability to track it and adjust its own position vis-a-vis the F-35. Point is to put yourself in a position that maximises your chances of getting an upper hand once you come into detecting and targeting range of the opponent. Once detected the F-35 would not be flying in a straight line towards the SC Non stealthy fighter. Depending upon TACTICS and doctrine based on its own performance it would then iniate an effort to get into a position that is advantageous to its weapon launching ability and that is disadvantageous to the opponent's weapons system ability...It would all come down to detection ranges and how much advantage the F-35 (F-22, pakfa or the J20) would realize compared to 4th and 4.5th gen fighters, basically amounting to the TIME the VLO Fighters have to act FREELY without having to worry about its opponent reacting to its every maneuver (countering) ...
    Agreed, but adding tactics in a bar chart is pretty difficult.

    However in the ~minute or so that both jets can see each other (with passive systems) I would say both will have pretty similar possibilities to get in position. Considering that the F35 will be around 0,6 mach slower than the average SC target it will be pretty difficult to flank them in an efficient manner. Especially when assuming that the enemy will be flying in a spread out formation...

    Some of the jets would likely use baiting techniques as well by doing sweeps ahead of the main formation if they believe stealth aircraft are present. They may also become more defensive and rely more on systems like silent guard in order to silently track the stealth aircrafts via ground-air datalinks (that have been in existance for quite a while). So stealth does not guarantee the element of surprise, it just improves the likelyhood of it occurring. Once you have that and engage/get within range, you will need the kinematics to maintain the advantage.

    The same philosophy is valid in ground combat. If you dont have enough firepower to make good use of the surprise element/to keep the initiative in the engagement you really should not get in the fight. In the case of the F35 it will really have a hard time to, in secret, get in position to silently flank the enemy... and once there it will have shorter ranged weapons.
    Lockheed Martin, because drop tanks stay during dogfights™

    The most useful link on the forum:

  17. #467
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    Agreed, but adding tactics in a bar chart is pretty difficult.

    However in the ~minute or so that both jets can see each other (with passive systems) I would say both will have pretty similar possibilities to get in position. Considering that the F35 will be around 0,6 mach slower than the average SC target it will be pretty difficult to flank them in an efficient manner. Especially when assuming that the enemy will be flying in a spread out formation...
    This assumes a lot of stuff which would be debatable for most missions...What would be the most optimum 4.5 generation flying altitude and speed? This would depend upon how much tanker support is available, how many fighters are available to cover what area...So you cannot simply assume that the 4.5 gen fighter able to supercruise would be operating at its most optimum altitude and speed. Second, the tactics are relevant because straight line engagements are NEVER going to happen, the Entire concept/purpose of VLO fighters is to give you that FREEDOM against active/passive sensors to position yourself in a position from where the opponent even when able to use those sensors closer up will find extremely difficult to get out of. .. So if you are going up against a fighter that has awesome radar (modern AESA ) and forward PASSIVE IR Sensors, then you may aswell point an intercept from a different angle...Like i said tactical flexibility is MORE fothr the fighter that has more REACH with its sensors while limiting the ability of its opponent. This Handicap would always remain, hence SERIOUS opponents of VLO fighters are VLO fighters and all those that can afford them are getting them. The goal for every fighter in any engagement is to use its established intel on trying to position itself in an intercept where the opponent is least effective...For an F-35 opponent that would be to get out of the EOTS passavie range as the DAS is shorter ranged and less qualitative..Similar would be the case for the F-35 vs other fighters...

    Some of the jets would likely use baiting techniques as well by doing sweeps ahead of the main formation if they believe stealth aircraft are present. They may also become more defensive and rely more on systems like silent guard in order to silently track the stealth aircrafts via ground-air datalinks (that have been in existance for quite a while). So stealth does not guarantee the element of surprise, it just improves the likelyhood of it occurring. Once you have that and engage/get within range, you will need the kinematics to maintain the advantage.
    Once you get into the STEALTH GAME then you better also be investing heavily to have the capabiity to MAINTAIN stealth, this comes from INCREASED SA gap between you and your opponent, greater resiliance to passive sensors and just an overall ability to Kick the door down with massive amounts of munitions and weapons on target in early phases of the campaign both from stealth crafts and non VLO crafts using stand off weapons...While engaging in purely ACADEMIC debates and comparisons (us enthusiasts) the real air forces have to go up against other airforces and not send a system against another...So for a user that has F-35 and all other support systems that are legacy an air force that operates adv 4th gen fighters but has everything else (EW, Support, SA, SATCOM , DL's) that is cutting edge the EDGE in battle would go to the latter force, therefore no point in acquiring stealth if you do not the sort of investments that really HELP in extracting the most utility out of that.... Therefore the F-35 must be seen in light of other weapons system the US or NATO can bring to bear on an opponent which are designed to put it on the back foot.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 22nd May 2013 at 13:54.
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  18. #468
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    995
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    This assumes a lot of stuff which would be debatable for most missions...What would be the most optimum 4.5 generation flying altitude and speed? This would depend upon how much tanker support is available, how many fighters are available to cover what area...So you cannot simply assume that the 4.5 gen fighter able to supercruise would be operating at its most optimum altitude and speed. Second, the tactics are relevant because straight line engagements are NEVER going to happen, the Entire concept/purpose of VLO fighters is to give you that FREEDOM against active/passive sensors to position yourself in a position from where the opponent even when able to use those sensors closer up will find extremely difficult to get out of. .. So if you are going up against a fighter that has awesome radar (modern AESA ) and forward PASSIVE IR Sensors, then you may aswell point an intercept from a different angle...Like i said tactical flexibility is MORE for the fighter that has more REACH with its sensors while limiting the ability of its opponent. This Handicap would always remain, hense SERIOUS opponents of VLO fighters are VLO fighters and all those that can afford them are getting them.
    Sure. Everything comes down to tactics. And in the case of the F35 it has both strong and weak points. A good adversary will take the fight to where he has the advantage. The most likely situation though is that the F35 will have to engage enemies outside the NEZ and hope to get a kill, aka going for the low Pk but keeping first shoot capability. "Sometimes you might get lucky...", and the worst case scenario is that the enemy is forced to exit the area. Ie, you maintained air superiority even if the enemy likely will come back. This unfortunately is a very costly way of maintaining superiority and it works for airforces like the USAF with unlimited money supply. But please tell me what other airforce that can afford wasting missiles worth $1,5m per "warning shoot" (meteor).

    When it comes to air combat though you have one side that always have the advantage inside or near the "killzone", and thats the jets with good enough sensors and a kinematic advantage. The F22 has the best attribute combo here as it will always enter the area with a kinematic advantage due to the short warning the enemy gets and the higher altitude + speed of the Raptor.

    As I said from the beginning. Don't enter a fight unless you are certain you can maintain the initiative. Due to the ranges involved this means that the F35 at all costs MUST stay outside the missiles high Pk zone. Unfortunately it carries very few and because of costs the enemy will have superior numbers. By using baiting techniques it is also possible to have the enemy bleed out the available airborne missile supply. To be succesful in baiting you need high speed and good turning capabilities, preferably at a high altitude.

    I have already said it, it is the combination of attributes that is key. We could do the F35-type argument about the MiG 31 and select one attribute to crown it master of the skies. "Because of the speed nobody has a chance of engaging it, flanking it or keep up with it". There, i said it. The MiG 31 is the best fighter ever made because of one over developed attribute while lacking most others. Or it is simply he best in some specific situations, just like the F35.
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Once you get into the STEALTH GAME then you better also be investing heavily to have the capabiity to MAINTAIN stealth, this comes from INCREASED SA gap between you and your opponent, greater resiliance to passive sensors and just an overall ability to Kick the door down with massive amounts of munitions and weapons on target in early phases of the campaign both from stealth crafts and non VLO crafts using stand off weapons...Therefore the F-35 must be seen in light of other weapons system the US or NATO can bring to bear on an opponent which are designed to put it on the back foot.
    Absolutely. In an offensive strike package I think it is pretty much perfectly designed. Working alongside the F22 I think the mix is the best you can get, but please tell me how many countries will have that combo for self defence? And when costs are involved, what offers the best overall capability?
    Lockheed Martin, because drop tanks stay during dogfights™

    The most useful link on the forum:

  19. #469
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    Unfortunately it carries very few and because of costs the enemy will have superior numbers. By using baiting techniques it is also possible to have the enemy bleed out the available airborne missile supply. To be succesful in baiting you need high speed and good turning capabilities, preferably at a high altitude.
    Baiting, swarming etc are KNOWN tactics that are hardly something that will be something out of the box...Most credible Air forces probably have tactics to deal with such. As far as NUMERICAL advantage for potential adversaries maybe for some European users, but then NATO members and other US allies have the advantage of having a larger structure to support them....

    but please tell me how many countries will have that combo for self defence?
    I have long said that the justification for a lot of nations at acquiring the JSF is questionable at best. Second, not many nations really need an F-22 to ensure Air dominance in a potential conflict. For the USAF opponent the problem is not finding a credible A2A capability vs F-35, but how to deal with a barrage of F-22's, F-35's, B-2's, LRS-B's and UCAS's generating an insane amount of Sorties per day...Not to mention the legacy fleets following behind with SO weaponry and non aircraft launched weapons...The F-35 gives you better discriminating ability for ground attack, much much better targeting (More bang for the sortie) and access to A2AD enviroments...So your sorties would be accomplishing more and more per mission...

    The most likely situation though is that the F35 will have to engage enemies outside the NEZ and hope to get a kill
    A more likely scenario would be that against a Non VLO fighter operating with limited SA the F-35 would probably begin to place itself in a position that is unfavourable for the opposing fighter's detection and targettng system. Upon weapons range the F-35 would deploy those weapons...If the non VLO Fighter detects the f-35 before the optimum launch NEZ of the F-35's weapons, it still has to fight it out for an advantageous position in aerial combat by first negating the advantage the F-35 has already acquired...Not to mention the ability to deal with the adversary greater SA provides any fighter....When you have much greater SA over your opponent due to your VLO systems, you can position your fleet in a much more optimum placement to alter enagements in your favour..this is obviously at an aerial war planning level....SA would enable the F-22's and F-35's (Flying at 50K with 4 BVR Weapons) to position themselves for AD missions much better, so you'd be able to get more utility (Fighters per situation or target of opportunity) with lesser airframes on mission...At the end of the day its SITUATIONAL AWARENESS that decides victory in aerial combat...So better shape up your SA if you want to defeat the F-35...Advantages in pure kinetic performance can easily be negated by tactics and having better SA....
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 22nd May 2013 at 14:27.
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  20. #470
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,073
    Meanwhile, work moves forward on the "stealthy" SH:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...od-mockup.html

    4 AMRAAMs in a low-RCS weapons pod -- not a lot but still the same as the F-35 will carry internally.

    With reduced RCS, more sensors, and improved sensor fusion, the 4.5 gen fighters will move closer the F-35 capabilities.

    If this can be done with the SH, then presumably also other 4.5 gen fighters can do the same, including the Rafale and Typhoon. Both Rafale and Typhoon already got quite good SA, and if the customers are willing to invest, it can only get better.

    What will the gap to F-35 be after such an upgrade? We don't know but my guess is that the F-35 will still maintain the edge both in terms of "stealth" and in terms of SA/sensor fusion. Also, these upgrades don't come for free. Still, the SH shows what can be done. The 4.5 gen fighters still got plenty of life in them.

    According to DiD the SH may be able to carry 2 AMRAAMs and 2 500 pounds JDAM, so in a2g not the same class as the F-35 (as you would expect).

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...changes-01989/

  21. #471
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    With reduced RCS, more sensors, and improved sensor fusion, the 4.5 gen fighters will move closer the F-35 capabilities.

    If this can be done with the SH, then presumably also other 4.5 gen fighters can do the same, including the Rafale and Typhoon. Both Rafale and Typhoon already got quite good SA, and if the customers are willing to invest, it can only get better.
    You have many limitations...If every legacy system could be upgraded you wouldnt have needed a new system in the first place. With legacy jets funding such upgrades vs cost is always going to be an issue...And then there is the entire point of actually testing out the claims on performance enhancements? Can an external stealthy pod on an F-18E/F or even on an F-35 preserve the same level of RCS that the f-35 has without the pod? If STEALTHIFYING a legacy fighter was such a good idea, boeing could have suggested of it for the JSF program, yet netiher the USAF/DOD nor boeing wanted a solution that was not optimized all aspect stealth from the start....The Internatinoal upgrades for the SH are a last ditch effort by boeign to keep the lines open for the SH by providing a lower cost/risk solution to both foriegn partners and the USN. Can't blame them, but the concept of significantly lowering Legacy fleet RCS has been rejected over having all aspect stealthy frames in the PAST by all concerned in the US, CHINA and RUSSIA...Of course 4.5 gen users would think about such capability enhancements in the future, everything required to ehance capability would/should be invested in...But this implies to the F-35 as well, its capability would be constatnly kept relevant in the decades ahead starting with engines, ew ability etc etc

    With reduced RCS, more sensors, and improved sensor fusion, the 4.5 gen fighters will move closer the F-35 capabilities.
    So the RCS boost provided by the weapons is negated, what about the overall RCS of a clean F-18E/F vs that of a clean F-35?

    What will the gap to F-35 be after such an upgrade? We don't know but my guess is that the F-35 will still maintain the edge both in terms of "stealth" and in terms of SA/sensor fusion. Also, these upgrades don't come for free. Still, the SH shows what can be done. The 4.5 gen fighters still got plenty of life in them.
    Its not going to be possible to lower RCS to a point where you can even be COMPETITIVE with the F-35 RCS, and then all those bulky pod mounted weapons provide increased drag which take away from your strenghts (hardly a concern for the SH )...
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 22nd May 2013 at 14:37.
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  22. #472
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    flying high
    Posts
    4,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Tu22m View Post
    It is fairly ok (according to LM) in the subsonic region. But accelerating from m 0,8-1,2 takes ~68 seconds for the F35A, the under powered Gripen A/C accelerates (clean) from mach 0,5 to mach 1,15 in 30 seconds. The Typhoon is a bit faster than Gripen A/C and both are more than twice as fast as the F35 in acceleration with light AA load (Gripen E will get 20-25% more thrust than C).

    Now, the longer time the chase takes and the slower the missile is the greater impact will kinematics have.
    Oh, I surely believe bad in the transsonic regime and okayish in the supersonic regime.
    Member of ACIG

    an unnamed Luftwaffe officer:"Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20°C you have to deploy the F-4F."

  23. #473
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,266
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on
    At the end of the day its SITUATIONAL AWARENESS that decides victory in aerial combat.
    Either that, or it is an ENERGY GAME at the end of the day, or something else.
    Personally i believe it is PILOT SKILL that decide the outcome more than any other factor
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  24. #474
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Tu22m View Post
    You forget that one is cruising at m 1,4 and the other needs +60 seconds of after burner usage to get close to that speed. But with afterburner the currently fielded IRST-systems will detect the target at some 80-90km. So the blue bar for the EF gets even longer while the orange bar for the F35 gets a little bit closer to the Eurofighters. But still the Eurofighter has a larger margin.

    But lets run the numbers, since you can't.
    25 sec burn, 1500m/s (theoretical max for METEOR) => 37,5
    Subtracting turn gives 15km + 22,5- EF distance travelled in opposite direction (7,5km) = 15 + 14,85 ~30km
    For the F35 it translates to 30km + 7,5km - 1,8km ~36 km or 20% longer effective range vs F35.

    If the missile travels at mach 4, or 1200m/s we get the following.
    EF 2000 as target, effectively engaged at ~ 23km
    F35 as target, effectively engaged at ~ 27km

    Of course + a little bit of glide flight in the end.

    The big difference here is that the Eurofighter will track and lock on the F35 at 90km (or at least track) instead of some 50km and that the F35 will get a better launch speed (that in this example is greatly exaggerated pro F35).

    The assumption I make here is that the F35 will have lower exit speed from the turn than the EF will because of the higher induced drag in the turning (because of poor lift/weight ratio => higher alpha => higher drag with a thrust/weight ratio that is too low to compensate for it). In other words, its based on physics and calculus. Now do you have anything but flamebaiting and smileys to add?


    Not that it changes the outcome in any way but some level of accuracy should be present.

    Time for another round?

    No aircraft, including the F-22, supercruises just for the heck of it. It is more efficient than using afterburners but it still burns a tremendous amount of fuel.

    Spelling it out simply, the Eurofighter in this scenario would not be supercruising at M1.4 before becoming aware of a threat. Additionally, the F-35 would not simply fly straight at the Eurofighter unless it was being operated by a total idiot. Even if we assume the EF was through some fluke at M1.4 the F-35 would have the freedom to decide how to enter the fight.

    Next, IRST systems do not look everywhere at once. (Unless we are talking about DAS) A target would have to be within its field of view and detectable. Even if this were the case an IRST only scans so fast and detection is not instantaneous. IRSTs are useful tools, but they aren't the magic stealth beaters that the fanboys of the internet wish they were. If you are relying on an IRST as your primary sensor you are giving up a lot.

    Next, decision-making takes time. The F-35 in your scenario would have a period of time to evaluate the situation, coordinate with any wingmen, etc, before committing to the fight. You don't simply detect a blip and then instantly race off to go lobbing a missile at it, especially if you were relying on an IRST which would deny you range and speed data in that initial detection. Your Eurofighter pilot would see a blip, he would know its bearing and rough altitude, but would not know either its range or speed. It is also possible that the initial detection was a false alarm, or something extremely distant and bright that bore no relevance to his aircraft.(A missile launch far in the distance...) He wouldn't even know if the blip was approaching him or moving away... simply put, it takes time for a human to gather information and make a decision. Not only wouldn't he know what he was dealing with, even if he had valid range information he couldn't assume a missile wasn't already bearing down on him. 80km is well within the effective range of an AMRAAM or Meteor. The F-35 could plausibly have fired at 100km, and then begun to accelerate for a potential follow-on shot. If the EF turned toward the mystery blip and went racing toward it the moment it saw it that follow-up shot wouldn't likely be necessary...


    etc etc etc

    This isn't about numbers. This is about lacking even a basic understanding of the factors at play here. You can't simply cook up an APA scenario and make a pretty chart and expect to be taken seriously. Real pilots have war-gamed these scenarios over and over again in the best simulators available and the results were very very good for the F-35.

  25. #475
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,063
    From the recent AUS testemony:

    Air Marshal Brown: ... But getting back to the situational awareness, the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane at any one particular time. That is a current fourth-generation aeroplane.

    The data fusion in the stealth makes such a difference to your overall situational awareness it is quite incredible. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis. They tend to go down particular paths in the aeroplane, whether it is turn rate performance or acceleration. These are all important factors, but it is a combination of what you have actually got in the jet and the situational awareness that is resident in the cockpit of a fifth-generation aeroplane that makes the fundamental difference.
    ...

    Air Marshal Brown: Let me get back to my example again. In all those cases, neither turning performance nor speed were the factors that caused us to die in those five simulated engagements. In any practice engagement I have had in the last 20 years where I have turned with another aeroplane in a bigger picture environment—rather than the static one by ones, two by twos or four by fours—every time I have tried to do that I have ended up being shot by somebody else who actually is not in the fight. As soon as you enter a turning fight, your situational awareness actually shrinks down because the only thing you can be operating with is the aeroplane you are turning with. The person who has the advantage is the person who can stand off, watch the engagement and just pick you off at the time. So you got to be really careful about how you use those KPIs.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  26. #476
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    This assumes a lot of stuff which would be debatable for most missions...What would be the most optimum 4.5 generation flying altitude and speed? This would depend upon how much tanker support is available, how many fighters are available to cover what area...So you cannot simply assume that the 4.5 gen fighter able to supercruise would be operating at its most optimum altitude and speed. Second, the tactics are relevant because straight line engagements are NEVER going to happen, the Entire concept/purpose of VLO fighters is to give you that FREEDOM against active/passive sensors to position yourself in a position from where the opponent even when able to use those sensors closer up will find extremely difficult to get out of. .. So if you are going up against a fighter that has awesome radar (modern AESA ) and forward PASSIVE IR Sensors, then you may aswell point an intercept from a different angle...Like i said tactical flexibility is MORE fothr the fighter that has more REACH with its sensors while limiting the ability of its opponent. This Handicap would always remain, hence SERIOUS opponents of VLO fighters are VLO fighters and all those that can afford them are getting them. The goal for every fighter in any engagement is to use its established intel on trying to position itself in an intercept where the opponent is least effective...For an F-35 opponent that would be to get out of the EOTS passavie range as the DAS is shorter ranged and less qualitative..Similar would be the case for the F-35 vs other fighters...
    He seems to really want to create scenarios where situational awareness either doesn't matter, or where "his" plane somehow has similar situational awareness as the F-35. (neither of which is going to happen)

    Consider the huge advantage operating with an AWACs grants even for non-stealthy 4th generation fighters. Yes their 4th generation opponents can theoretically detect them at substantial ranges, but even so having an AWACs is a huge advantage because it gives your side the big picture and thus the ability to decide the terms of the engagement. Your opponent will be reactive from the word go, and you would be operating with much more complete information.

    With a true stealth aircraft that advantage is enhanced tremendously. His widely dispersed formation of Eurofighters supercruising at M1.4 (lol) would be fighting blips that wouldn't even appear for the most part until well within their engagement range... while the F-35s would be seeing the big picture. It is quite simply a losing hand to be dealt and that is why the F-35 has the backing of so many forces.

  27. #477
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,063
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Spelling it out simply, the Eurofighter in this scenario would not be supercruising at M1.4 before becoming aware of a threat. Additionally, the F-35 would not simply fly straight at the Eurofighter unless it was being operated by a total idiot. Even if we assume the EF was through some fluke at M1.4 the F-35 would have the freedom to decide how to enter the fight.
    These kinds of assumptions are what got RepSim/APA laughed out of the Australian Parliament.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  28. #478
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    995
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Baiting, swarming etc are KNOWN tactics that are hardly something that will be something out of the box...Most credible Air forces probably have tactics to deal with such. As far as NUMERICAL advantage for potential adversaries maybe for some European users, but then NATO members and other US allies have the advantage of having a larger structure to support them....
    Yes, the tactics are known. Stealth isnt new and when we look at Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter, Superhorny etc they are all made with "semi stealth" or minimal frontal RCS in mind => similar tactics in AA fighting as the stealth aircrafts. They also have pretty advanced datalinks, again offering the same or similar tactics that stealth ac will use.

    To ensure air dominance you need numbers, good kinematics, good sensors and good missiles. F16V with great ground support, IRST and Meteor would probably fair well today and a long time to come.
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    I have long said that the justification for a lot of nations at acquiring the JSF is questionable at best. Second, not many nations really need an F-22 to ensure Air dominance in a potential conflict. For the USAF opponent the problem is not finding a credible A2A capability vs F-35, but how to deal with a barrage of F-22's, F-35's, B-2's, LRS-B's and UCAS's generating an insane amount of Sorties per day...Not to mention the legacy fleets following behind with SO weaponry and non aircraft launched weapons...The F-35 gives you better discriminating ability for ground attack, much much better targeting (More bang for the sortie) and access to A2AD enviroments...So your sorties would be accomplishing more and more per mission...
    Everything is based on assumptions.

    Assuming the enemy does stay with current systems and doesnt upgrade to multistatic stations you will get better acces with the F35.
    Assuming they do upgrade and invest in shorad... well... the radar stations suddenly become bait and your F35s become targets.

    I am happy to admit that there are strong points of stealth aircrafts but they only improve existing capabilities. If you optimise against one threat (like monostatic radars) it will improve survivability in that arena but it will likely cost you in other areas. And the problem is that we now have multiband seekers and tracking systems (not very common when the F35 was in the planning phase), high capacity IRST as well as multistatic radars. We even have AA systems that can be fully autonomous, like Pantsir S1.

    The Meteor missile has a k-band seeker and not a classic x-band radar. IRIS-T SL is a new addon in the SAM-arena and so on, so you are correct in that the F35 and stealth in general makes a lot of equipment obsolute/less performing..

    How would your strike package fair against an equally costly defensive force operating popup shorad (that only pops up when the target is in range btw), multistatic radars as well as over a hundred Pak FAs as well as the mix of Tu22M with long range cruise missiles and maybe some MiG 31 interceptors as well as some Iskander hiding near the front lines? When we compare the costs, and assume equal amount of money spent we see that it gets really complicated to get a good answer.

    I ran some cost numbers before. And If you buy Rafale or Gripen instead of F35, and the enemy bases 12 F35 per airfield, then that money can be spent on wasting $2,64 billion per target in just munitions. That is roughly the same as 1800 Tomahawk missiles... per airfield with just 12 F35. So we can stare at details as much as we want and ignore the big picture. Or we can broaden the discussion indefinitely. For every F35 you can afford one Gripen E/Rafale and 20 Pantsir S1 ans still have money for other purchases.
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...25#post2006725
    Quote Originally Posted by seahawk View Post
    Oh, I surely believe bad in the transsonic regime and okayish in the supersonic regime.
    It's possible. The numbers aren't exactly public.
    Last edited by Tu22m; 22nd May 2013 at 16:45.
    Lockheed Martin, because drop tanks stay during dogfights™

    The most useful link on the forum:

  29. #479
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    her that, or it is an ENERGY GAME at the end of the day, or something else.
    Personally i believe it is PILOT SKILL that decide the outcome more than any other factor
    Pilot skill has to be assumed here does it not? (Or we get into my pilots are better then your pilots debate)...Energy is important, but it can easily be overcome asymmetrically if you have advantage elsewhere...For example a supercruising fighter without backup support from AWACS is not going to cut it against a subsonic fighter that has its radar off and is being vectored in by an AWACS for the kill. So SA plays a role, and so does VLO designs.....Shrink your enemies SA and detection range and he can rome around at supercruise all he wants until he has to RTB....Whereas you have to do minimal manuvering to get into a tactically advantageous position because you are SIMPLY FREE to do what you want because of the detection advantage.. as you have a RCS Advantage (Considerable) and can tactically manuever so that you stay outside the scope of your opponent's most potent sensors...(Radar scan angles, IRST Angles etc etc etc )...

    He seems to really want to create scenarios where situational awareness either doesn't matter, or where "his" plane somehow has similar situational awareness as the F-35. (neither of which is going to happen)
    Some 4.5 gen crafts have great SA given their overall ability, Modern AESA programs are already operational for the SH and coming soon for the euro fighters...The problem here is they are stll at best at par with what the VLO jet is fielding and as such do not negate the inherent advantage of a lowered RCS that existed despite of these radars...The F-35 or any fighter for that matter is not going to be flying STRAIGHT towards a 4.5 jet, upon detection it is going to be executing manuevers to tactically position itself as it inches closer for his weapons solution...The object in many cases is to gain altitude and lateral separation so that you can flank the opponent from the side or behind where his sensors are not at the strongest....Hence in equal BVR you keep turning with your opponent...When you can't see him from range, its tough to turn with him
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

  30. #480
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Linthicum, MD
    Posts
    9,161
    That is roughly the same as 1800 Tomahawk missiles... per airfield with just 12 F35. So we can stare at details as much as we want and ignore the big picture. Or we can broaden the discussion indefinitely. For every F35 you can afford one Gripen E/Rafale and 20 Pantsir S1 ans still have money for other purchases.
    Yes cost is hurting now...But in the future this might not be the case...RAAF estimates that once the procurement is over their average cost per frame procured may come down to as much as 85 million a pop, this is very competitive, maybe not with the Gripen but definitly with the rafale, while both are IOC'd mature weapons systems while the F-35 is still in testing....Apples and orranges...Circa 2025 things could look a lot different (provided if these fighters are still in production)
    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES