Boagrius

It strikes me that much of this discussion centres on how you view the US' likely strategic outlook over the next several decades (or more). A lot of the dialogue so far has focused on CAS in the relatively low intensity COIN type situations of the past (Iraq and Afghanistan). My suspicion, however, is that the USAF are prioritising their high end war fighting capability by adamantly replacing the A10 with a different class of aircraft in the F35. Surely the USAF's most pressing future challenge resides in providing a conventional deterrent to Chinese expansionism in the Western Pacific and similar Russian moves in the Baltic. I don't think it would be controversial of me to say that the F35 is much better placed to contribute to such a deterrent than is the A10. Both the Chinese and Russians are working hard on the kind of next gen IADS and A2/AD capabilities that would render the A10 nigh on useless ten, twenty and certainly thirty years from now. This to to say nothing of the questionable usefulness of a short legged CAS jet in the Pacific Theatre now... Just my 2c.

I would have thought something like APKWS could fill the void left by the GAU-8 to an ample extent. More precise, better on target effects (family of warheads that are bigger than anything found in a 30mm round) and the ability to fire from outside MANPAD/VSHORAD/trash fire range at relatively low cost. [ame= ] [/ame] Load a MALE UCAV like Reaper/Avenger/whatever-comes-after-them to the gills with this and SDBs/JAGM and you've got yourself a cheap yet potent and persistent CAS platform for low intensity COIN ops. Likewise for the F35 using its external hardpoints (APKWS) along with internal bays (SDB etc).

Pretty sure he was referring to EODAS, which acts as a 360 degree spherical IRST, especially at WVR ranges. While yes, VLO aircraft do possess sig reduction (eg. the F35's recessed LOAN nozzle, "Topcoat", fuel cooling etc.) in the IR spectrum it strikes me as unlikely that any of the F35's likely future opponents would have IR reduction measures capable of getting them to within 10nm without detection...

Haha fair enough. It will be interesting to see what guidance package will find its way onto SACM. I suspect it will be optimised to cope with this kind of scenario quite handily.

Not to mention AIM120D. Even with the range penalty of HOBS shots, the slammer should make that sort of distance COMFORTABLY (ie. pK is still "good"). Even if that shot misses for some reason you can then take another one with the nose appropriately pointed while the target has been busy defending the first one.

In any case US doctrine certainly seems to have shifted away from dogfighting as a "Plan A" contingency. I imagine there would be a substantial amount of data collected from large scale exercises like Red Flag influencing this as well... Frankly I think it makes sense. The ever advancing capabilities of HOBS missiles and sensors (off board targeting via datalinks, guidance hand-overs, EODAS etc) seem to be making it more and more optional, rather than mandatory, to point the nose at a target before firing from close range (still with a good pK). Hell, even the slammer is supposed to have HOBS capability in the Delta model... I suspect the "phonebooth" is becoming a bad place to obtain reliably favourable kill:loss ratios for just about everyone - hence the "first look, first kill" dogma.

I agree. Few people realise that this is the first time the west has truly attempted a generational leap in its fighter aircraft during the internet age. There has literally never been a time in history where it was so easy to air the dirty laundry of a developmental aircraft, making it possible for sensationalism and outright falsehoods to spread among the general public as though they were fact. When you also consider this in light of the sheer size and complexity of the leap being attempted, you have to conclude that there were always bound to be problems. Bigger program = bigger problems. The situation is unprecedented on a number of levels. ...aaaaand back on topic we go :)

Not a problem. As I said, we are all taking stabs in the dark at the end of the day. The task of "crunching the numbers" on an aircraft when much/all of the pertinent data is not publically available is always going to be one that is fraught with difficulty (at best...perhaps futile at worst) - especially when you lack the qualifications to do so. That said I find Pierre to be much less credible than the source I posted - at least the above appears to be an evidence based argument from someone with a modicum of expertise on the matter. Pierre is little more than a zealot at this point, and a cursory glance at his reasoning makes this painfully obvious.

The C model is not replacing the F/A18E or F. That will be left to F/A-XX down the track. The F35C's job will be to replace the USN's classic Hornets.

*Obnoxious repost due to new page of thread* ^ Hummingbird I think you and others might benefit from/enjoy this: PART 1 http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html PART 2 http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html PART 3 http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec_26.html PART 4 http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html About the author: "I am a '3rd Generation Aerospace' Professional and a retired Air Force Senior NCO. I maintained and tested airborne precision guided weapons the first half of my Air Force career [including AIMVAL/ACEVAL, TASVAL79, AIM-9L FOT&E--IYAAYAS!] and flight tested RPVs, Drones and Cruise Missiles [XBQM-106A, Pave Tiger/Panther, CALCM, ACM and 'others'] the second half. Since my AF retirement I have worked on many aircraft, UAV and weapons programs. I have worked systems, flight, and laboratory test programs about half the time, and have worked R&M Engineering, Depot Operations, and Operations Analysis (Combat and Logistics) the other half, I am now the Lead Engineer xx x xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx (doing 'stuff') on yet another major weapon systems program and still involved in a wide range of Aerospace Engineering and Military Operations Research activities for multiple programs." Ultimately all we can do is speculate about this stuff - I very much doubt we can simply have a cursory look at publically available pictures and info to make any firm conclusions. That said, the above makes for a good read if that's what you want to investigate.

I think you and others might benefit from/enjoy this: PART 1 http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html PART 2 http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html PART 3 http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec_26.html PART 4 http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html About the author: "I am a '3rd Generation Aerospace' Professional and a retired Air Force Senior NCO. I maintained and tested airborne precision guided weapons the first half of my Air Force career [including AIMVAL/ACEVAL, TASVAL79, AIM-9L FOT&E--IYAAYAS!] and flight tested RPVs, Drones and Cruise Missiles [XBQM-106A, Pave Tiger/Panther, CALCM, ACM and 'others'] the second half. Since my AF retirement I have worked on many aircraft, UAV and weapons programs. I have worked systems, flight, and laboratory test programs about half the time, and have worked R&M Engineering, Depot Operations, and Operations Analysis (Combat and Logistics) the other half, I am now the Lead Engineer xx x xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx (doing 'stuff') on yet another major weapon systems program and still involved in a wide range of Aerospace Engineering and Military Operations Research activities for multiple programs." Ultimately all we can do is speculate about this stuff - I very much doubt we can simply have a cursory look at publically available pictures and info to make any firm conclusions. That said, the above makes for a good read if that's what you want to investigate.

True but that does not change the fact that post merge, "tail chase" dogfighting has diminished dramatically in terms of operational relevance over the last 50 odd years, and this is reflected in western air combat doctrine today. The emergence of directed energy weapons is probably only going to further this trend down the track. The simple reality is that network-centrism is the overriding doctrine in the west, and is likely to remain that way for some time. The F35 is well designed to fit in with this philosophy.

You also have to consider how much lift is generated by the body of the F35 (perhaps a more overt body lift design than the Hornet), and factor in the total lack of external stores and associated drag in an operational setting. The unfortunate reality is we just don't know what kind of pitch/turn rates the F35 is going to be capable of. That said, "Hornet/Falcon-esque" strikes me as a decent ballpark guess... and a ballpark guess is about all we can realistically expect for now.

^ Front line combat aircraft? I doubt it. At any rate I wasn't referring to DIRCM so much as "hard kill" directed energy weapons.

^ Actually carrying directed energy weapons on combat aircraft is probably in the pipeline over the next 30 years or so. The F35 also looks set to receive its own DIRCM turret eventually, something it should be ideally suited to using since it could cue it with a 360 MAWS like DAS... It's going to be AT LEAST another decade before directed energy weapons of any kind can be fielded widely on combat aircraft, and much longer than that before they can be used to significantly rival and/or eclipse the general relevance of AAMs as an A2A weapon. I'd bet it'll be closer to two decades + By that stage the F35 will have gone through its own upgrades (eg. possible ADVENT engine, sensor upgrades, DIRCM, new AAMs, new drone connectivity, perhaps its own laser... who knows) so trying to predict how it will stack up in that time frame based on its CURRENT performance specs is pretty disingenuous... The point at which the F35 will meet a technically comparable enemy (I assume we are referring to potential T50/J20/MiG LMFS variants here) is still a long time away, meaning that "classic dogfight capabilities" may not become mandatory at all. The number of directions that A2A combat could go in over that timeframe are just too numerous to predict with that kind of certainty. For example, the widespread fielding of turreted lasers on combat aircraft could well render classic dogfighting OBSOLETE, since it would be possible to track and kill a detected WVR target quite literally at light speed, especially when an F35 could cue its laser with DAS. A jet's ability to turn/climb/accelerate/pull G's and high AoA maneuvers could be utterly irrelevant when defending against an enemy capable of killing it with a laser from any angle, altitude and orientation - instantly. I'd contend that in this scenario the first aircraft to detect the enemy and then get off the first shot would still be the winner - signals management, sensor and laser peformance, data sharing and network/support platform performance would all therefore be MUCH more influential in determining the outcome of such A2A engagements. Nevertheless, this is all without mentioning the potential role of other emerging technologies like active radar cancellation, drone swarms and so on...

F35 should win every time(!?). With the control laws properly taken care of and any software limits taken off the aircraft, the ability to cue HOBS and even LOAL AIM9X shots with DAS from ANY angle means the F35 should take the F16's lunch money in WVR pretty handily...