The F-35 Thread

[Pilotasso]

The current mindset may lead most to repeat post Vietnam lessons. never forget. :)

[Tirak]

The current mindset may lead most to repeat post Vietnam lessons. never forget. :)

 

Absolutely. After all, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that while it may be 2016, absolutely no progress in missile technology has occurred since 1970. I know, I know, you've got more computing power in your watch than sent the astronauts to the moon, and the pace of technology enhancement is an exponentially increasing curve, but in terms of missile seeker head technology, there's been no progress at all. So seriously, stop trying to remove the only weapon that aircraft fight with.

[outlawal2]

Absolutely. After all, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that while it may be 2016, absolutely no progress in missile technology has occurred since 1970. I know, I know, you've got more computing power in your watch than sent the astronauts to the moon, and the pace of technology enhancement is an exponentially increasing curve, but in terms of missile seeker head technology, there's been no progress at all. So seriously, stop trying to remove the only weapon that aircraft fight with.

 

And that is a totally ludicrous statement. There are MANY new missiles since 1970 any of which have new technology.. Why do people talk about stuff they have no knowledge of or bother to take 3 seconds and lookup. Google is your friend..

 

GOOD

GOD

[GGTharos]

The sarcasm is strong with this one :D

 

Absolutely. After all, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that while it may be 2016, absolutely no progress in missile technology has occurred since 1970. I know, I know, you've got more computing power in your watch than sent the astronauts to the moon, and the pace of technology enhancement is an exponentially increasing curve, but in terms of missile seeker head technology, there's been no progress at all. So seriously, stop trying to remove the only weapon that aircraft fight with.

[outlawal2]

The sarcasm is strong with this one :D

 

Well if it WAS sarcasm then I stand corrected, otherwise it is sadly misinformed drivel...

 

Personally I am hoping for the sarcasm theory..

:thumbup:

[Hummingbird]

Well if it WAS sarcasm then I stand corrected, otherwise it is sadly misinformed drivel...

 

Personally I am hoping for the sarcasm theory..

:thumbup:

 

 

I can't imagine it being anything but sarcasm ;)

 

That having been said whilst seeker technology most certainly has come a long long way, so has countermeasures. Question is wether one tech will outpace the other and render it ineffective.

[Tirak]

And that is a totally ludicrous statement. There are MANY new missiles since 1970 any of which have new technology.. Why do people talk about stuff they have no knowledge of or bother to take 3 seconds and lookup. Google is your friend..

 

GOOD

GOD

 

 

The amount of sarcasm in my response was enough to murder an elephant :doh:

Edited March 5, 2016 by Tirak

[ФрогФут]

LERX has alot to do with that,

 

Something the F-35 doesnt have.

There are 3 pairs of vortex generators instead.

[Emu]

And that is a totally ludicrous statement. There are MANY new missiles since 1970 any of which have new technology.. Why do people talk about stuff they have no knowledge of or bother to take 3 seconds and lookup. Google is your friend..

 

GOOD

GOD

I think it may have been sarcasm.:smilewink:

[Emu]

The current mindset may lead most to repeat post Vietnam lessons. never forget. :)

Vietnam was about the last time a gun was widely used in air combat. Since then, only a couple in Falklands, one in Ethiopian-Eritrean War. Unless you count Desert Storm A-10 kills on helicopters. In Desert Storm less than half F-15 kills were WVR, less than 20% involved dogfights. F-15 at the time had no IRST or middle distance IIR AAMs.

[outlawal2]

 

The amount of sarcasm in my response was enough to murder an elephant :doh:

 

OK sorry you win... I must have had my sarcasm detector turned OFF..

Sorry

:doh:

[Bullfrog_]

Vietnam USAF 'gun' lesson over shadows the Navy 'training' lesson by a hell of a lot in this conversations. It's a shame since Navy pilots post Topgun did better than AF pilots even with their fancy gun.

[Emu]

Vietnam USAF 'gun' lesson over shadows the Navy 'training' lesson by a hell of a lot in this conversations. It's a shame since Navy pilots post Topgun did better than AF pilots even with their fancy gun.

Yep. Stats read AF 3:1. Navy 6:1 for Vietnam.

[Nerd1000]

There's actually so many things standing in the way of a dogfight now that the only way it can really happen is if a routine escort suddenly turns hostile, which would probably require a pilot to have a mental breakdown of some kind. When you think that an F-15 with no IRST hit a MiG-21 from 8.5nm (15+km) head-on with an AIM-9M in Desert Storm, you really have to question how an aircraft is getting past even longer range IIR AAMs combined with IRST in order for a dogfight to ensue. Seems to me that the bigger factors in manoeuvrability would be things like climb rate (for positioning), acceleration (for escape) and high speed turns (for evasion) in BVR - for two aircraft of similar RCS that is anyway.

 

I do sometimes wonder why we're even bothering with fighters at this point. All that expensive tech, and you're going to throw it into a situation where (assuming equal numbers and technology) it is essentially guaranteed to be shot down: both sides have missiles with similar range that are essentially unavoidable, and both sides' jets carry multiple missiles.

 

Why not build a disposable 'missile bus' drone instead? The missiles are so good at this point that they don't need a fighter to put them in a good position, so all you need to do is get in range, point them at the enemy and press the big red button. Target detection and mid-course guidance of BVR missiles could be carried out by an AWACS positioned a safe distance from the action.

[Hummingbird]

There are 3 pairs of vortex generators instead.

 

Don't you mean two? But anyway it lacks the added LERX surface area we see on the F-18. Question also is how strong a vortex those vortex generators on the F-35 will create, the ones we see on the F-18 are perhaps the strongest of any aircraft and I don't think the F-35 is even going to approach this.

 

A good picture showing the two vortices on the F-35:

 

The F/A-18E & C for comparison:

 

Note: The F/A-18C also generates two vortices, the 2nd one generated near the wing root as on the F-35. Can't see wether the F/A-18E does the same.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Hummingbird

[ФрогФут]

I mean 3: sharp sides of the nose, teeth on the intakes, small lerx.

[Hummingbird]

I mean 3: sharp sides of the nose, teeth on the intakes, small lerx.

 

I think the nose shape has more to do with stealth, and I don't really see them generating much of an actual vortex, even if they are essentially a small form of chines.

 

[Emu]

I do sometimes wonder why we're even bothering with fighters at this point. All that expensive tech, and you're going to throw it into a situation where (assuming equal numbers and technology) it is essentially guaranteed to be shot down: both sides have missiles with similar range that are essentially unavoidable, and both sides' jets carry multiple missiles.

 

Why not build a disposable 'missile bus' drone instead? The missiles are so good at this point that they don't need a fighter to put them in a good position, so all you need to do is get in range, point them at the enemy and press the big red button. Target detection and mid-course guidance of BVR missiles could be carried out by an AWACS positioned a safe distance from the action.

An AWACS would have limited range against stealth planes. You could in theory do BVR with a stealth drone but it would be a matter of getting the decision making aspect of it right.

[Boagrius]

Don't you mean two? But anyway it lacks the added LERX surface area we see on the F-18. Question also is how strong a vortex those vortex generators on the F-35 will create, the ones we see on the F-18 are perhaps the strongest of any aircraft and I don't think the F-35 is even going to approach this

Note: The F/A-18C also generates two vortices, the 2nd one generated near the wing root as on the F-35. Can't see wether the F/A-18E does the same.

 

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.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Boagrius

[Pilotasso]

Vietnam was about the last time a gun was widely used in air combat. Since then, only a couple in Falklands, one in Ethiopian-Eritrean War. Unless you count Desert Storm A-10 kills on helicopters. In Desert Storm less than half F-15 kills were WVR, less than 20% involved dogfights. F-15 at the time had no IRST or middle distance IIR AAMs.

 

Missed the the war over lebanon in 1982 with 80+ AA aircraft shot down. But Im really nitpicking here though. If we were to equip the sirforces just for the frequency these things happen, then we would be left with CAS aircraft only. ;)

[Emu]

Missed the the war over lebanon in 1982 with 80+ AA aircraft shot down. But Im really nitpicking here though. If we were to equip the sirforces just for the frequency these things happen, then we would be left with CAS aircraft only. ;)

True, Bekaa Valley, but only 8 (10%) of those kills involved gun use and they were still on the Lima version of the AIM-9 and Foxtrot version of the AIM-7. Desert Storm was pretty much a re-run against a similar enemy with updated missiles and circa 60% of kills were outside 10nm, which was determined as BVR, 1 of the ones inside 10nm was at 8.5nm, and only 5 of the WVR kills involved dogfighting, with no gun use against fixed wing aircraft.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Emu

[SkateZilla]

Sorry guys, I previously stated the F-35 doesnt have a LERX,

 

The F-35 A and B's do Inface have a SMALL LERX,

 

The F-35Cs do not, as the enlarged wings and surfaces generate more lift and the C's Wing Root actually connects to the part of the frame the LERX would normally be.

 

That being said, the F-35A/B's LERX is no where near the level of the F-18E/Fs and would provide no where near the High AoA Performance of the F-18E/Fs

[Pilotasso]

True, Bekaa Valley, but only 8 (10%) of those kills involved gun use and they were still on the Lima version of the AIM-9 and Foxtrot version of the AIM-7. Desert Storm was pretty much a re-run against a similar enemy with updated missiles and circa 60% of kills were outside 10nm, which was determined as BVR, 1 of the ones inside 10nm was at 8.5nm, and only 5 of the WVR kills involved dogfighting, with no gun use against fixed wing aircraft.

 

Like it has been said before, today we also have better countermeasures. It's not by accident the US navy has been lobying for a larger IR stick and all airfroces have retained the gun.

[Emu]

Like it has been said before, today we also have better countermeasures. It's not by accident the US navy has been lobying for a larger IR stick and all airfroces have retained the gun.

The longer IR stick is for use against stealth, not because missiles don't work. Guns have been retained barely, almost wasn't on the Eurofighter. Mostly it's about ground targets in high collateral areas and not air combat.

 

Eventually we'll all have AESA headed missiles like the Japanese AAM-4B and then countermeasures will be redundant.

[Pilotasso]

there is no endgame for weapon VS countermeasure.