The F-35 Thread

[Hummingbird]

Well, off the top of my head:

 

- We know all of their 5th gen jets are also their very first meaningful forays into the production of VLO tactical aircraft.

 

- We know that this shows when they are compared to those of the US.

 

- We know that they're only just coming to grips with fighter based AESA sets when the US has been fielding them for years.

 

- We know that the US lead in AESA technology also crosses over into EW/jamming capabilty (ref NGJ and GaN)

 

- We know they're a long way from being able to present the pilot with sensor data in remotely as streamlined a way as the F35 does...

 

- We know that EW and VLO work hand in hand - a VLO jet is orders of magnitude easier to conceal/protect via jamming than a 4th gen one. The smaller your RCS, the more effective your jamming is and the less RF energy you will require to achieve a given outcome. This is important because even emitting with a very modern jammer (say Khibiny for example) can give you away when faced with an EW suite like Barracuda (nevermind entire networked flights of them). The US lead in VLO technology actually has very serious ramifications for the EW domain as well.

 

 

 

Probably because they can't compete on the VLO/sig management and sensor front so they're left with a more brute force approach. The US has been investing heavily in the VLO game for a LONG time and they're not sitting idle with it. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese can be reasonably expected to close that gap in their first serious attempts - corporate espionage or otherwise.

 

I dunno, I remember when the YF-22 was chosen over the stealthier & faster YF-23 and here maneuverability was the deciding factor. So I think it's definitely an area of uncertainty.

[Boagrius]

I dunno, I remember when the YF-22 was chosen over the stealthier & faster YF-23 and here maneuverability was the deciding factor. So I think it's definitely an area of uncertainty.

 

You're reaching here. I doubt anyone really knows what the deciding factors were in the public domain - much of the relevant data is most certainly classified. At any rate it's also an apples and oranges comparison - the F35 also brings things to the air to air arena that neither the F22 nor YF23 do/did. The landscape of military aviation has also changed considerrably since their performance criteria were set and evaluated.

 

The points I made (at your request) about the differences in important sensor, EW and sig management technology between the US, Russia and the PRC are actually extremely relevant to the F35's potential as a fighter aircraft going forward. Vastly moreso than BFM stats. You would do yourself a disservice by simply dismissing them because you "dunno".

Edited November 12, 2016 by Boagrius

[Hummingbird]

You're reaching here. I doubt anyone really knows what the deciding factors were in the public domain - much of the relevant data is most certainly classified. At any rate it's also an apples and oranges comparison - the F35 also brings things to the air to air arena that neither the F22 nor YF23 do/did. The landscape of military aviation has also changed considerrably since their performance criteria were set and evaluated.

 

The points I made (at your request) about the differences in important sensor, EW and sig management technology between the US, Russia and the PRC are actually extremely relevant to the F35's potential as a fighter aircraft going forward. Vastly moreso than BFM stats. You would do yourself a disservice by simply dismissing them because you "dunno".

 

I'm not dismissing them, I am simply not dismissing the other possibility either - which I believe was also the mindset behind the F-22's design.

[Boagrius]

I'm not dismissing them, I am simply not dismissing the other possibility either - which I believe was also the mindset behind the F-22's design.

 

Can you elaborate?

[Hummingbird]

Can you elaborate?

 

What I mean is that I am not dismissing that maneuverability might prove important in future conflicts, neither am I dismissing that it might not. This was AFAIK also the philosophy behind the design of the F-22. Better to be safe that sorry.

[Boagrius]

What I mean is that I am not dismissing that maneuverability might prove important in future conflicts, neither am I dismissing that it might not. This was AFAIK also the philosophy behind the design of the F-22.

 

No-one is saying maneuverability isn't or won't be important, just that it isn't a fight-winner the way it once was. Nowadays the air battle is almost certainly won or lost on the back of numerous other metrics and capabilities first. This is the message that has been coming out of the relevant parts of the operational community ad nauseum for quite a while now. For example:

 

 

 

Better to be safe that sorry.

 

Sounds great, except in the real world an F35 with F22-like kinematics would in fact be an uber-F22, cost well over 100 million a piece and only be "fieldable" in comparatively tiny quantities (or not at all for smaller airforces). Remember quantity has a quality all of its own...

 

Alternatively you are left with something 4.5 gen like the Typhoon which has all the super duper kinematic bells and whistles, but lacks the VLO signature and sensor sophistication to compete as effectively in the EM spectrum against VLO opponents... you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Edited November 14, 2016 by Boagrius

[Weta43]

Well, off the top of my head:

- We know all of their 5th gen jets are also their very first meaningful forays into the production of VLO tactical aircraft.

...

- We know that this shows when they are compared to those of the US.

Actually, all we really know is that for whatever reason, they appear to have taken a different approach to VLO design, so

-You're reaching here. I doubt anyone really knows what the deciding factors were (...) the relevant data is most certainly classified.

- We know that they're only just coming to grips with fighter based AESA sets when the US has been fielding them for years.

Actually, the Russians fielded electronically scanned radar on a frontline fighter (MiG-31) in 1981, the first US fighter to have an electronic scanning radar received the radar (APG-63(V)2v) in 2000.

Interestingly, the MiG-31 radar was upgraded in the late 80’s after the Russians discovered Adolf Tolkachev had sold details of its construction to the US in the early 80’s

- We know that the US lead in AESA technology also crosses over into EW/jamming capability (ref NGJ and GaN)

So you think the Russians can't keep up with ECM? Perhaps this is why the HAWK system had to be upgraded to MIM-23C / E after the IRAN / IRAQ war, when the Russian jammers were found to provide almost complete invulnerability against that system?

- We know they're a long way from being able to present the pilot with sensor data in remotely as streamlined a way as the F35 does...

again

-You're reaching here...(all) of the relevant data is ...classified.

The Russians have decades of experience in developing PESA & EASA radars, they’ve just never been able to afford to deploy them. The МiG-31BM can act as EWR, control SAM systems and hand off target data to other aircraft that are not currently tracking the target themselves - they’ve been investigating and evolving data-linking/data-sharing between flights since the days of GCI controlled (MiG-29) radar sets, and they’ve been aware of sensor fusion and developing integrated radar/EOS/HMS systems for decades (who got high off bore sight SRAAM & helmet mounted sight into their front line aircraft first, the US or Russia ?)

Yes, the F-35 has some cool tricks (some of which we won’t know about), and yes displaying the true position of targets on a visor when you look at the floor is tricky, but you think the Russians can’t write software ? (Think about what web site are you posting on ... )

 

It may be that as it turns out, budget constraints mean that the Russians can’t afford to put into the PAK-FA the kind of technology that they’d like to, but it’s foolish arrogance to believe that their scientists aren’t capable of producing cutting edge technology.

 

(It’s going back a few years, but remember that until they ran out of money, the Russians dominated the space race. They put a satellite into orbit first, orbited the moon first, made the first soft landing on the moon, got the first lunar rover on the moon, got the first probes to Mars and to Jupiter. The US still uses Russian motors on its launchers, and Russian hall effect thrusters on its satellites.)

[Ktulu2]

Well...this got patriotic real quick...I don't see how comparing technology with LoL-like memory (Little old Lady, aka wires passing through magnets) that was straight up physical has anything to do with what could be compared as a modern program.

 

IMHO, it doesn't matter whether Russians are said [edited for sensible beings] behind because of research, development or economical problems, the fact still is that Russians do not have access to these technologies on the field. Having 20 front door key at home is nice, but useless when you forgot them inside.

[Hummingbird]

GarryA should have really posted a link to the actual PDF - it is F-35 related and the methology used is in the report IIRC ( not reading it now).

 

Strike Fighters A-A

 

 

The figures shouldn't be wrong (not that I have gone over it with a fine toothed comb) - because it is all manual data apart from the F-35 which is only based on known information.

 

And the guy who did it is an aerospace engineer - and it is done from that perspective - less exciting I know.

 

I don't know who took the figures out and stuck them together like that but they were totally missing the point of the paper which took months to do - it was an attempt to do something far more comprehensive than the normal amateur forum debates.

 

Alright went through the paper which despite being well written contains many glaring errors and some very favorable (and odd) assumptions about the F-35 on top, esp. in terms of the lifting areas for several aircraft. The nail in the coffin are the performance figures though as they are just dead wrong for several aircraft, which became painfully clear after cross checking with the manuals.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Hummingbird

[garrya]

It's a reasonable prediction based on the figures & visual cues we have so far.

what visual cue and figure that you talking about here ? we dont even know F-35 CL to begin with

 

Remember the F-18 features an STR only about 1 deg/sec lower than that of the F-16, and the ITR is slightly superior across the board until the hornet's G limit, except for the swiss hornets which are 9 G rated. .

The only graph for F-18 that i can find is this one

and may be in that same configuration F-16 only has 1 degree/second better than F-18 (i havent bothered to check it , so i will take your words for it), but nothing to conclude that an F-16 with no EFTs dont have much better STR than F-18 especially considered that a small aircraft like F-16 will be affected by heavy load more.

Then nothing certain to conclude that F-35 dont have good ITR either , pilot who flied it clearly rated it very good in ITR department.

 

No'one ever said it was?

You keep insisting that pilot of F-16 , F-15 will let their air speed decay down to Mach 0.6 when dogfight with F-14 , instead of using aircraft to their strength ( high speed turn )

 

The the only reason we've been talking so much about turning performance is because you brought up a kinematic energy chart made by some other person that had terribly wrong figures for several aircraft.

Enlighten me where is he wrong again ? his chart literally showed turn performance at Mach 0.8 , 20.000 feet . You put up some number showed turn performance of those aircraft up until Mach 0.75 and 10.000 feet , then you concluded his number is wrong because they are not the same as your?????? what kind of logic is that ???? Then you also ignored the fact that he dont use the same 50% fuel load for all aircraft ( because their internal fuel isnot the same ), instead he measure the specific amount of fuel they will need to carry based on fuel flow chart and using same mission profile.

Edited November 12, 2016 by garrya

[wilky510]

Boagrius, alot of people here are biased (Just look at Weta43's post). I'd advise from just not even engaging in a conversation with them. You'll save yourself the frustration. Some people just can't be bought on the F-35 because of what the media feeds them.

[Boagrius]

@Weta43: Kia-ora bro! Was in your part of the world earlier in the year for the second time ever - lovely place.

 

Actually, all we really know is that for whatever reason, they appear to have taken a different approach to VLO design

 

So I'm reaching to say that this just might have something to do with the fact that T50 is literally their first attempt at widely fielding a VLO front line combat aircraft? While the US has been sinking untold amounts of research and investment into the same field for decades, and has produced and combat tested multiple widely operational iterations/generations of them? I don't think I'm saying anything particularly controversial here whatsoever to be honest...

 

Actually, the Russians fielded electronically scanned radar on a frontline fighter (MiG-31) in 1981, the first US fighter to have an electronic scanning radar received the radar (APG-63(V)2v) in 2000.

Interestingly, the MiG-31 radar was upgraded in the late 80’s after the Russians discovered Adolf Tolkachev had sold details of its construction to the US in the early 80’s...

 

Now listen mate, I can deal with you guys thrashing us in the Rugby all the time but I can't deal with strawman arguments. I quite clearly mentioned AESA fighter radars, not (P)ESA radars - big difference ;)

 

(who got high off bore sight SRAAM & helmet mounted sight into their front line aircraft first, the US or Russia ?)

 

Last time I checked the US actually got the tech off the ground first with the AIM95 "Agile" - they just didn't field it widely because it was too expensive (sound familiar? :P ooooh burrrn! haha just kidding).

 

So you think the Russians can't keep up with ECM? Perhaps this is why the HAWK system had to be upgraded to MIM-23C / E after the IRAN / IRAQ war, when the Russian jammers were found to provide almost complete invulnerability against that system?

 

Seriously mate if you keep it up with these strawmen I'm going to have to mention Ireland... :P I would like to see your source for this though, it sounds like a fascinating bit of military history.

 

At any rate I didn't say they couldn't keep up whatsoever, just that the US has the lead in implementing AESA and VLO tech and that this is likely to have important ramifications in the EW domain as well. I'd add that what Soviet technology could achieve against a Cold War era Western SAM system has little to do with what the Russians are likely to be able to achieve ~40+ years (and a lot of economic suffering) later across the board.

 

I could equally point you (in the same time period) to what the Israelis achieved in the Bekaa Valley against Soviet analogues to the MIM-23, or the apparent immunity that AN/ALQ135 equipped F15's had to them in Desert Storm, but it wouldn't be all that relevant would it?

 

Yes, the F-35 has some cool tricks (some of which we won’t know about), and yes displaying the true position of targets on a visor when you look at the floor is tricky, but you think the Russians can’t write software ? (Think about what web site are you posting on ... )

 

The All Blacks got whooped by a bunch of LEPRECHAUNS!!! Dammit Weta, now look what you made me do! :p (Sorry Irish posters it was all for the banter)... don't hit me ;)

 

It may be that as it turns out, budget constraints mean that the Russians can’t afford to put into the PAK-FA the kind of technology that they’d like to, but it’s foolish arrogance to believe that their scientists aren’t capable of producing cutting edge technology.

 

(It’s going back a few years, but remember that until they ran out of money, the Russians dominated the space race. They put a satellite into orbit first, orbited the moon first, made the first soft landing on the moon, got the first lunar rover on the moon, got the first probes to Mars and to Jupiter. The US still uses Russian motors on its launchers, and Russian hall effect thrusters on its satellites.)

 

I'm not selling Russian ingenuity short whatsoever - I am well aware of how potent it has been and can be, particularly when properly resourced. I’m just not getting sucked in by the APA/”Russia stronk” crowd either.

 

That said, you're right in pointing out that much of the data on EW and VLO is classified and this confounds anyone's ability to draw meaningful conclusions in the public domain. For that reason I'd refer you to someone like former RAAF Air Marshall Geoff Brown - someone who is to my knowledge pretty highly respected both here and in NZ for both his professionalism and experience in these matters - he's had the classified briefings that you and I haven't:

 

 

Anyhoo, I get the sense we may be hijacking the thread now, so I'll put a sock in it - no offence meant to anyone for the record, everything intended in good nature and/or in jest :thumbup:

Edited November 13, 2016 by Boagrius

[Rangi]

Let's see if we can't bring this back from the edge of pointlessness....

 

 

The other day a USMC F-35B had a weapons Bay fire

http://www.janes.com/article/65401/usmc-investigates-f-35b-weapons-bay-fire

[Hummingbird]

what visual cue and figure that you talking about here ? we dont even know F-35 CL to begin with

 

Dimensions, video footage etc..

 

For example one thing that immediately struck me watching the F-35A flying in formation at low speeds with F-16's following a chase plane was how high an AoA the F-35 needed to maintain just to stay airborne. This in itself indicates a high lift loading.

 

You keep insisting that pilot of F-16 , F-15 will let their air speed decay down to Mach 0.6 when dogfight with F-14 , instead of using aircraft to their strength ( high speed turn )

 

I never said that. What I said was that in a straight out turn fight the plane with a similar max rate at a lower speed would have the advantage.

 

Enlighten me where is he wrong again ? his chart literally showed turn performance at Mach 0.8 , 20.000 feet . You put up some number showed turn performance of those aircraft up until Mach 0.75 and 10.000 feet , then you concluded his number is wrong because they are not the same as your?????? what kind of logic is that ???? Then you also ignored the fact that he dont use the same 50% fuel load for all aircraft ( because their internal fuel isnot the same ), instead he measure the specific amount of fuel they will need to carry based on fuel flow chart and using same mission profile.

 

Easy, look at the 20 kft performance charts for the various aircraft mentioned, few of them match up with the figures in that paper at all. Infact for the F-14 he seems to be using 25 kft figures part of the way with the rest not adding up at all.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Basher54321]

Alright went through the paper which despite being well written contains many glaring errors and some very favorable (and odd) assumptions about the F-35 on top, esp. in terms of the lifting areas for several aircraft. The nail in the coffin are the performance figures though as they are just dead wrong for several aircraft, which became painfully clear after cross checking with the manuals.

 

Okay that has literally nothing in it on how anything was done - must be thinking of the others he did initially.

 

Anyway some of the methods are explained in posts here. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=27580 - for anthing else just PM him and Im sure he will explain the whys and he would have had to recalculate a lot of it for the specific flight profiles, loadouts and weights etc - and obviously the F-35 model is estimnated no matter how complex it is.

 

 

 

Sorry I deleted most of Bushmannis post to just leave a few lines but I actually meant I agreed with most of his post hence the Boyd ref.

[Hummingbird]

Okay that has literally nothing in it on how anything was done - must be thinking of the others he did initially.

 

Anyway some of the methods are explained in posts here. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=27580 - for anthing else just PM him and Im sure he will explain the whys and he would have had to recalculate a lot of it for the specific flight profiles, loadouts and weights etc - and obviously the F-35 model is estimnated no matter how complex it is.

 

 

 

Sorry I deleted most of Bushmannis post to just leave a few lines but I actually meant I agreed with most of his post hence the Boyd ref.

 

It's an interesting take on things, but the fact sadly remains that he got a lot of the basic figures glaringly wrong. How he got them that wrong I don't know, they stuck out like a sore thumb the moment I saw them.

 

He is being extremely optimistic about the F-35's body in terms of lifting area as well, esp. considering the very boxy shape of the airframe in comparison to the others, heck even the F-15's airframe is less boxy and it also features variable deg intakes to improve the airflow, and yet somehow he arrived at a higher overall lifting area for the F-35.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Hummingbird

[garrya]

Dimensions, video footage etc..

 

For example one thing that immediately struck me watching the F-35A flying in formation at low speeds with F-16's following a chase plane was how high an AoA the F-35 needed to maintain just to stay airborne. This in itself indicates a high lift loading.

I guess you are referring to this picture

 

 

There is 2 problems with getting assumption from that photos

 

1- Does the F-35 flying at high AoA or is it start to pitch up ? like in this picture F-22 appeared like it has higher lift loading too

 

 

 

 

2- How much fuel do those aircraft carry ? if they carry same percentage of fuel ( assuming near 100% ) then it clearly put F-35 in a disadvantaged position because an F-35 carry alot more fuel internally than F-16 (it has almost twice the combat radius ). If you equalized their combat radius aka fueled them according to mission requirement , then that a different question all together. Will an F-16 with 2 EFTs has better lift loading than F-35 ? unlikely

Moreover , the different between their AoA is exaggerated alot due to the angle the photo was taken

 

 

I never said that. What I said was that in a straight out turn fight the plane with a similar max rate at a lower speed would have the advantage.

So by straight out turn fight , you mean only turning in horizontal circle ? In what case dogfight even limited to that only ?, so pilot suddenly dont use what they learn from Boyd energy maneuverability theory ???

Easy, look at the 20 kft performance charts for the various aircraft mentioned, few of them match up with the figures in that paper at all. Infact for the F-14 he seems to be using 25 kft figures part of the way with the rest not adding up at all.

I havent seen the chart for F-14D at 20k feet , however , you should consider the fact that , all flight manual only ever show turning performance when internal fuel load is 50% or 100%, while in his analysis , he actually calculated how much fuel percentage they need to carry , how much do they have left at dogfight point. Since their fuel load and fuel consumption is completely different .So that explain the different between figures in his analysis and in EM chart. You could simply copy and paste EM chart directly from flight manual but that would missed the point completely

Edited November 13, 2016 by garrya

[garrya]

 

He is being extremely optimistic about the F-35's body in terms of lifting area as well, esp. considering the very boxy shape of the airframe in comparison to the others, heck even the F-15's airframe is less boxy

And why would a boxy shape mean less body lift ? F-22 looks boxy too. Compared to F-15 , F-35 has negative stability which means its tail can contribute to lift too.

 

variable deg intakes to improve the airflow

 

Actually , i have never heard that variable intake will increase lift in dogfight.

[Bushmanni]

Moving intakes act like leading edge flaps on the wing. How much effect they have is another question.

 

I'd like to point out that making quantitative predictions about aerodynamics of a plane based on it's looks is misleading and way too prone to errors that it would be productive or smart. You can make qualitative estimations based on looks but that's as far as I would take it.

[Heli]

 

[Rangi]

Great picture, thanks Heli.

[Hummingbird]

I guess you are referring to this picture

 

 

There is 2 problems with getting assumption from that photos

 

No I am not refering to that picture or any other picture for that matter, but to video recordings, of the event where that photo was taken amongst others:

 

 

 

1- Does the F-35 flying at high AoA or is it start to pitch up ? like in this picture F-22 appeared like it has higher lift loading too

 

Actually the F-22 and F-16 look like they are flying at exactly the same AoA in that picture, so no.

 

2- How much fuel do those aircraft carry ? if they carry same percentage of fuel ( assuming near 100% ) then it clearly put F-35 in a disadvantaged position because an F-35 carry alot more fuel internally than F-16 (it has almost twice the combat radius ). If you equalized their combat radius aka fueled them according to mission requirement , then that a different question all together. Will an F-16 with 2 EFTs has better lift loading than F-35 ? unlikely

Moreover , the different between their AoA is exaggerated alot due to the angle the photo was taken

 

As the 2nd vdeo above shows even with 2 EFTs the F-16 flies at a noticably lower AoA than the F-35 when flying in formation with the Spitfire.

 

 

So by straight out turn fight , you mean only turning in horizontal circle ? In what case dogfight even limited to that only ?, so pilot suddenly dont use what they learn from Boyd energy maneuverability theory ???

 

Garrya you brought up a chart that shows information that pertains to level turns, i.e. strictly horizontal. So again that's the only reason why we are at all talking about this. In short you picked the scenario here, not I.

 

I havent seen the chart for F-14D at 20k feet , however , you should consider the fact that , all flight manual only ever show turning performance when internal fuel load is 50% or 100%, while in his analysis , he actually calculated how much fuel percentage they need to carry , how much do they have left at dogfight point. Since their fuel load and fuel consumption is completely different .So that explain the different between figures in his analysis and in EM chart. You could simply copy and paste EM chart directly from flight manual but that would missed the point completely

 

Read the manuals and then come back, the discrepancies are too large for that theory to hold any water.

 

He is using the exact 25 kft ITR figure for the F-14D in his 20 kft comparison, but his other figures are mysterious.

[Vitormouraa]

[Hummingbird]

And why would a boxy shape mean less body lift ? F-22 looks boxy too. Compared to F-15 , F-35 has negative stability which means its tail can contribute to lift too.

 

Have you looked at the difference in wing loading between those two? The F-22 makes up for the boxy fuselage shape with the sheer amount of wing it has.

 

Also as to why boxy = less lift, it's basic aerodynamics. The less boxy and more airfoil shaped the object, the more lift and vice versa.

 

Actually , i have never heard that variable intake will increase lift in dogfight.

 

That's the whole point of the system, to increase lift.

[wilky510]

Have you looked at the difference in wing loading between those two? The F-22 makes up for the boxy fuselage shape with the sheer amount of wing it has..

Actually, the F-22 is quite boxy, even with it's "bigger wings", it's the size of a freaking Flanker, so that may help it's apparent lack of "boxy" appearance when looked at.

 

The F-35 is boxy because it's an F-16 sized aircraft with huge amounts internal volume for fuel/weapon bays. And before you go on some rant, I'm quite aware it's no where near the actual empty weight of an F-16. But it IS the F-16 for the supposed "stealthy hi/low mix"

 

So with the F-35 being in the "low" mix, what do you do, when you want an aircraft to be less expensive? You reduce the size... The F-22 is the high end of the mix, it has 2 engines, instead of 1, and requires more money to build because it's a much bigger aircraft.

 

But that isn't good enough, now people want 300 million dollar aircraft for the low end mix. Now people want a 1.50 T/W thrust vectoring F-16 with no stealthy features since stealth aircraft are an apparent "waste" of money (BTW, a patent released about the F-35 shows it's fiber-mat stealth coating works across all bandwidths for radar ranges, including the supposed super duper all seeing low band radar ranges) while somehow having 25,000 pounds of fuel with "off the shelf" technology... You just can't win.

 

I bet you even with it's apparent "crappy" boxy appearance it's still more aerodynamically clean than most 4th gen aircraft loaded with just fuel tanks and A2A missiles.

 

If the F-35 is such a turd by simply looking at it, and you can clearly can do better with all your "expert" opinions. Why aren't you working for the USAF?

Edited November 14, 2016 by wilky510