The F-35 Thread

[gavagai]

 

F-16 didn't defeat the F-35 in a dogfight. Nobody won anything. It was a test to optimize the control laws at high AoA. In the era of HOBS missiles like AIM-9X that are increasingly hard to spoof with flares the ability to get the nose pointed and the first short off becomes ever more important.

 

Get a little bit of whiskey in him and an F-35A flight test engineer might tell you point-blank that the aircraft "is not a dogfighter." We're banking that the F-35 can shoot down its adversaries BVR before they can detect it. I think we're past the point of wondering which aircraft is better for a WVR engagement.

[Tirak]

Get a little bit of whiskey in him and an F-35A flight test engineer might tell you point-blank that the aircraft "is not a dogfighter." We're banking that the F-35 can shoot down its adversaries BVR before they can detect it. I think we're past the point of wondering which aircraft is better for a WVR engagement.

 

At the end of the day so much of the whining about the performance comes down to statements like this. Assumptions, insinuations and innuendo. No concrete facts. No understanding of the process. Just the latest in the sensationalized clickbait from bloggers with even less of a clue spouting their vitriol about something that will bring the gullible running to look at their ads. These are the same people who called the F-22 a flop, the Abrams worthless and the Eagle a hopelessly over complicated lemon.

[Wizard_03]

I think the problem is people are just ignorant to it's capabilities, just like they were to the F-22 and F-15. Just look at sensor fusion for a second. Everyone here that uses DCS understands how important SA is and how much that makes a difference in a fight regardless of how 'good' your fighter is at something. If you don't understand whats going on fast enough your probably gonna have someone get the drop on you and die.

 

The F-35 with its electronic warefare, AESA radar, Irst, countermeasure, and IR warning systems all integrated means that nothing is going to get the drop on the F-35, its going to have the best SA of any fighter to date. That single capability aside from HMD or aim-9x or any other is going to make the F-35 very hard to kill.

[Python]

At the end of the day so much of the whining about the performance comes down to statements like this. Assumptions, insinuations and innuendo. No concrete facts. No understanding of the process. Just the latest in the sensationalized clickbait from bloggers with even less of a clue spouting their vitriol about something that will bring the gullible running to look at their ads. These are the same people who called the F-22 a flop, the Abrams worthless and the Eagle a hopelessly over complicated lemon.

 

Same people that tried to put a stop to the F-16 they are now raving about in comparison to the F-35... ;) The Falcon did okay in the end I think.

[Boagrius]

We're banking that the F-35 can shoot down its adversaries BVR before they can detect it. I think we're past the point of wondering which aircraft is better for a WVR engagement.

 

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...

Edited September 8, 2015 by Boagrius

[Bullfrog_]

Now put some laser missile protection system on your foe's plane and see how missile effectiveness fades away... again

 

 

Tbf, if the enemy plane has a laser that can shoot down missiles... I don't think I want my plane getting near it.

[Mike5560]

I think the problem is people are just ignorant to it's capabilities, just like they were to the F-22 and F-15. Just look at sensor fusion for a second. Everyone here that uses DCS understands how important SA is and how much that makes a difference in a fight regardless of how 'good' your fighter is at something. If you don't understand whats going on fast enough your probably gonna have someone get the drop on you and die.

 

The F-35 with its electronic warefare, AESA radar, Irst, countermeasure, and IR warning systems all integrated means that nothing is going to get the drop on the F-35, its going to have the best SA of any fighter to date. That single capability aside from HMD or aim-9x or any other is going to make the F-35 very hard to kill.

 

Though I don't beleive the F-35 will rival an A-10s CAS capabilities in counter-insurgencies, this is a good post. Situuational awareness and ease of use is paramount.... And this is what the F-35 is designed for. Yes, a PAK-FA will be able to engage the F-35 given the right conditions. If a war broke out between any of the superpowers, having the first "lock" on someone is like the shot heard around the world.

Even if it seems you are on the offensive in BVR, you have to worry about all the potential low-observable aircraft that you don't see, and wonder how many of the adversaries screens you are showing up on due to datalink.

[Wizard_03]

Though I don't beleive the F-35 will rival an A-10s CAS capabilities in counter-insurgencies, this is a good post. Situuational awareness and ease of use is paramount.... And this is what the F-35 is designed for. Yes, a PAK-FA will be able to engage the F-35 given the right conditions. If a war broke out between any of the superpowers, having the first "lock" on someone is like the shot heard around the world.

Even if it seems you are on the offensive in BVR, you have to worry about all the potential low-observable aircraft that you don't see, and wonder how many of the adversaries screens you are showing up on due to datalink.

 

I agree with you, My concern is its durability compared to the A-10 both in mission turn around times and how much punishment it can take, it definitely will replace the F-16s and early F-18Cs and AV-8Bs in that role but I'm not sold on the A-10Cs being made obsolete by this thing.

 

But to my point even with CAS role I've seen a lot of misconceptions browsing the internet, one thing some individuals kept bringing up is that you can only carry Two bombs internally. Its as though they are completely unaware that the F-35 can carry weapons externally in a non stealthy configuration. Its that kind of Ignorance that creates confusion regarding its abilities.

 

It's like what Tirak said people just want to be sensational especially when something is new and expensive. If you don't do objective research and have an good understanding of tactics and history, its hard to understand what makes this plane so remarkable. That and honestly its hard to get solid data on the F-35 as its still new and classified-ish.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Wizard_03

[GGTharos]

I agree with you, My concern is its durability compared to the A-10 both in mission turn around times and how much punishment it can take, it definitely will replace the F-16s and early F-18Cs and AV-8Bs in that role but I'm not sold on the A-10Cs being made obsolete by this thing.

 

There are studies out there showing that the A-10C isn't really all that durable anyway. It suffered more casualties performing CAS than then F-16's did for example, and more hits resulted in airframe loss (ie. not 'just some damage').

 

The Tornados suffered a lot more casualties also.

 

Conclusion?

 

Don't fly low, even when doing CAS. AAA and MANPADS don't care what type of aircraft you are.

[Esac_mirmidon]

PAK-FA won't be built in any decent numbers lol, and will be less stealthy then F-35 and less powerful sensor suite.

 

And you know that because?

 

You know home many TR modules the PAK-FA AESA has? You know the power of the radar? The modes it has?

 

You know the real RCS of the PAK-FA when it enters combat ready use? You know how is the electro-optical suite it has and it´s capabilities?

 

You know how are the electronic integrated systems, capabilites and functions?

 

I will be very happy if you know and share with us all that data and sources and post it here for general knowledge.

 

PD: Agree with you GG. Flying low is a risky business and one of the reasons for upgrading the A-10C with PGM was to be able to attack at medium profiles to avoid low SAM and AAA.

[Wizard_03]

There are studies out there showing that the A-10C isn't really all that durable anyway. It suffered more casualties performing CAS than then F-16's did for example, and more hits resulted in airframe loss (ie. not 'just some damage').

 

The Tornados suffered a lot more casualties also.

 

Conclusion?

 

Don't fly low, even when doing CAS. AAA and MANPADS don't care what type of aircraft you are.

 

Yeah that's true, If you get hit with MANPAD your pretty much done, I don't care what your flying.

 

I'm just thinking For one from a logistical standpoint the cost of keeping F-35s on the flight line is going to be higher then for a A-10 and also the A-10 is slower and more fuel efficient. I know that the F-35 can do everything the A-10 can in terms of weapons delivery.

 

But I don't know how the F-35 will stack up to the A-10s loiter time and the fact that its slow enough to stay close to the fight.

 

I suppose the F-35s data linking abilities can make up for the fact that its faster and higher then the A-10 But it needs to be tested. Its one thing on paper Its another in battle. The F-16 cannot do the A-10s job as well so I have a hard time thinking the F-35 can either but we don't have actual evidence yet.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Wizard_03

[Snoopy]

There are studies out there showing that the A-10C isn't really all that durable anyway. It suffered more casualties performing CAS than then F-16's did for example, and more hits resulted in airframe loss (ie. not 'just some damage').

 

The Tornados suffered a lot more casualties also.

 

Conclusion?

 

Don't fly low, even when doing CAS. AAA and MANPADS don't care what type of aircraft you are.

 

Just to clarify those were A-10A's not A-10Cs ;) No C models have been lost in combat. (I do understand what you're trying to say though)

 

But if I'm being completely honestly the only opinion on the A-10 that I care about is the boots on the ground...

 

 

The F-35 will eventually be a great air frame, it's just not there yet.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Snoopy

[GGTharos]

I'm just thinking For one from a logistical standpoint the cost of keeping F-35s on the flight line is going to be higher then for a A-10 and also the A-10 is slower and more fuel efficient. I know that the F-35 can do everything the A-10 can in terms of weapons delivery.

 

Well, almost everything :) The A-10 has its niches.

As for the cost - fewer planes = less fuel = fewer tankers = fewer pilots = fewer maintainers = fewer types of engines to maintain = fewer parts to sources = fewer EW support aircraft = ... the savings keep adding up.

 

At least that's the philosophy.

 

But I don't know how the F-35 will stack up to the A-10s loiter time and the fact that its slow enough to stay close to the fight.

Is this even a serious factor? It may make the difference in some cases, but does it make a difference overall?

 

I suppose the F-35s data linking abilities can make up for the fact that its faster and higher then the A-10 But it needs to be tested. Its one thing on paper Its another in battle. The F-16 cannot do the A-10s job as well so I have a hard time thinking the F-35 can either but we don't have actual evidence yet.

Depends on 'the job'. There are niches that the A-10 fills that cannot be replaced by other aircraft, and that includes the 'light attack aircraft' bids.

 

On the other hand, an F-35 pilot can react very quickly to a changing situation as well, and given the relative omni-directionality and fire-and-forget nature of a lot of its weapons (common with the A-10C, too), there is a change in how fast the weapons will hit the target, but maybe not in the ability to deliver weapons on target.

 

Having enough F-35's to cover your guys becomes a scheduling issue. Loiter time can be effectively dealt with by having tankers on station in a bunch of cases, in others, maybe not so much. One factor to think about when it comes to loiter time is available munitions, and that GAU-8 sure comes with a lot of BBs.

 

So ... it depends. There are pros and there are cons, but it's not all cons. You'll always manage to find a situation where an A-10 might have been preferable.

[GGTharos]

Just to clarify those were A-10A's not A-10Cs ;) No C models have been lost in combat. (I do understand what you're trying to say though)

 

Yup, you're absolutely correct, I totally missed that :)

 

But if I'm being completely honestly the only opinion on the A-10 that I care about is the boots on the ground...

 

The F-35 will eventually be a great air frame, it's just not there yet.

 

Agreed. And the A-10 has to retire SOME day in the end ... everyone will miss it, and it's going to be like the F-14 retirement .... a mess all over the internet :)

 

Let's just hope that any replacements will leave little to be missed.

[Wizard_03]

 

Having enough F-35's to cover your guys becomes a scheduling issue. Loiter time can be effectively dealt with by having tankers on station in a bunch of cases, in others, maybe not so much. One factor to think about when it comes to loiter time is available munitions, and that GAU-8 sure comes with a lot of BBs.

 

So ... it depends. There are pros and there are cons, but it's not all cons. You'll always manage to find a situation where an A-10 might have been preferable.

 

You make good points, In any case the roles the F-35 is specifically meant to fill like those of the F-16 F-18c and Av-8B it can replace and there's no question about that A2A CAS SEAD whatever The F-35 is more then capable, That was my ultimate point about it. A-10 is A-10

 

If they decide to drop the A-10 for it too so be it, It did its job well but it's getting old. But then again the A-10 is a tricky plane to kill on the battlefield and on the budget sheets They've tried before. ;)

[Snoopy]

It did its job well but it's getting old. But then again the A-10 is a tricky plane to kill on the battlefield and on the budget sheets They've tried before. ;)

 

She's still doing her job every day over the skies of Iraq and Syria.

[FSKRipper]

Still thinking that operating single engine CAS aircraft like the F-16 or F-35 over territory hold by religious fanatics is a stupid idea. It don't even need a manpad to get the pilot into trouble.

The Warthog is no wonder but to keep some of them in action to fly FAC and coordinate rescue operations would be more constructive then sending them to the boneyard.

[Maximus_G]

Tbf, if the enemy plane has a laser that can shoot down missiles... I don't think I want my plane getting near it.

Those systems don't actually shoot them down (not enouth energy for that), they just blind the seeker. Yup they could blind the human pilot instead, but that's not a legal way of warfare.

 

---

And that potentionally leads to an interesting situation: attacking plane is free to tear you into pieces with its 30mm, while you can't(?) defend yourself with that laser.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Maximus_G

[Boagrius]

^ 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...

 

Now put some laser missile protection system on your foe's plane and see how missile effectiveness fades away... again

 

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 is - when you meet a technically comparable adversary, classic dogfight capabilities become mandatory. Preferring YF-22 over YF-23 was a wise choice even if Black Widow was more stealthy and could pull as high AoAs as Lightning could do.

 

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...

Edited September 9, 2015 by Boagrius

[Mike Busutil]

Yup they could blind the human pilot instead, but that's not a legal way of warfare.

 

 

It's ok to shoot a missile into the guy's face and kill him but you better not point a laser at him!

[Bullfrog_]

Those systems don't actually shoot them down (not enouth energy for that), they just blind the seeker. Yup they could blind the human pilot instead, but that's not a legal way of warfare.

 

No, they shoot them down.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL9_Tldmrhs

[Maximus_G]

No, they shoot them down.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL9_Tldmrhs

 

OK, now let's try to take off with all of this stuff ))

 

I'm talking about airborne systems.

 

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 +

Northrop Grumman claims they've installed their DIRCM onto 750 aircraft already.

[Boagrius]

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

[wilky510]

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

Most of those aircraft that got the DIRCM are transports in the USAF ie: C-17, C-130H/J, AC-130, and many more. USAF felt they were the most vulnerable to MANPADs coming in and out of hotzones with supplies.

 

edit: most of the US Army AH-64's have a smaller DIRCM added too now (not talking about the disc-ball, uses lasers i believe).

Edited September 10, 2015 by wilky510

[tflash]

Something more on the Grim Reapers flying the F-35C @ NAS Fallon: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/09/11/f-35s-hone-dog-fighting-skills-top-gun-1st-time/72048704/