The F-35 Thread

[mvsgas]

Sorry Groove, I thought the information/conversation was relative/ related to the conversation.

Edited August 27, 2009 by mvsgas

[X-man]

Well, it doesnt matter what the F-22 can or cannot do, it was designed for A2A, so the bays were designed for AMRAAMs. F-35 on the other hand are designed for A2G, which is why it can take such a payload.

 

I dont get why so many people are so pessimistic about the F-35. Since when are newer generation aircraft worse then the older ones? I believe the F-35 will do exceptionally good in it's main role, A2G. And for A2A, well, thats what the F-22 are for... ;)

[Vekkinho]

Well, it doesnt matter what the F-22 can or cannot do, it was designed for A2A, so the bays were designed for AMRAAMs. F-35 on the other hand are designed for A2G, which is why it can take such a payload.

 

I dont get why so many people are so pessimistic about the F-35. Since when are newer generation aircraft worse then the older ones? I believe the F-35 will do exceptionally good in it's main role, A2G. And for A2A, well, thats what the F-22 are for... ;)

 

 

I can second that but I also believe the future F-22 versions will provide more complex A2G capability as well. Now why I said that?!

 

I like comparing main roles of F-35 and F-22 to F-16 and F-15 of 21st century. We had a dedicated air superiority/interceptor in a form of a F-15 and a multirole combat fighter in case of F-16. But like I said, F-15 was given an A2G pinpoint strike ability later on (F-15E) and to be honest it can do both A2A and A2G roles equally good as a dedicated A2A (F-15C). In fact, with upgraded and more powerful engines F-15E might be even better A2A platform than a F-15C. Not to mention reduced pilot workload because of a WSO!

 

I expect the same with F-22 in the future, I expect it would be granted more in-depth A2G capability, perhaps we'll even see a twoseater variant of it. It wouldn't be a bad call bacause modern combat is getting pretty complex and I expect the future warfare asks for multirole capability birds with accent on A2G precision strikes. Let's face it, WW-II is over and I see no 50 vs 50 dogfight scenarios in the future!

 

So that's something F-22 industry has think about and turn towards it cause F-35 guys are already there!

[GGTharos]

Not going to happen. First and foremost, while in an emergency the F-15E might be used as an A2A platform, their job is A2G, period, pretty much. In addition, at least AFAIK, the F-15C is currently far better equipped for A2A duty than the F-15E ;)

 

The F-22 has a very limited number of airframes whose job is Air Dominance. They are not re-engineering it for strike, and that's pretty much all there is to it. The F-22 will remain with the JDAM and SDB capability. It is already fairly comprehensive and long-ranged firepower capable of kicking the door down - but it won't be doing that, either, typically ... this will be the F-35's job.

[Vekkinho]

^^^^^^

Too bad, I believe it's a bad call from Lockheed Martin/Boeing 'cause I always though making such move of widening the Raptor's area of expertise would prove it's price and make market more interested in purchasing a Raptor. Like I said, I see no massive air fights in the future, no Soviet offensive, no Jerrys over Canal, no Japs in the Pacific so it speaks in favor of those who say that current number of 187 airframes will do.

 

On the other hand F-35 made it's way past Tiffy, Rafale, Gripen and other let's say 4,5 ot 4++ gen fighters just because it versatile and ...mmmhm affordable. Better bang for buck than Raptor if you ask me!

[GGTharos]

For air to ground, yes.

 

If a serious air to air situation ever arises, it's unlikely you will see anything close to the F-22 for 'bang for your buck' though ... and that is the entire point of the Raptor.

 

Even today with all this technology, aircraft are designed with a primary mission in mind, and they reflect this in their capabilities. It is probably much easier to get a good A2G aircraft out of an A2A aircraft, but it's not likely to be the most efficient thing. On the other hand, getting an A2A plane out of an A2G plane ... eeeeeh no. In some cases such an aircraft might adewuately serve, but in general it will not be able to touch a dedicated A2A plane.

Edited August 27, 2009 by GGTharos

[Groove]

Vekkinho, that affordable for the F-35 was a joke. right ?

[Vekkinho]

It is probably much easier to get a good A2G aircraft out of an A2A aircraft, but it's not likely to be the most efficient thing. On the other hand, getting an A2A plane out of an A2G plane ... eeeeeh no.

 

That's exactly why I keep believing that converting Raptor into Strike Raptor or simply further enhancing it's A2G capability would be reasonable move in the future. Way better than relying on F-35 for BVR combat! However, most of the F-35 users plan replacing their Falcon fleets with F-35 and that's OK, that's the way it should be (I said I think of F-35 as F-16 successor) but the great deal of A2A remains uncovered with the JSF. Which takes us back to a simulated F-35 vs Su-35 combat results despite it's stealthiness. If we compare today with '80s, simulated F-16C vs Su-27P would make the Flanker an underdog, wouldn't it?!

 

@Groove:

Affordable - heh, you probably understand my mmmhm!

 

F-35 is being advertised as affordable (you saw MVSgas' PR video), there's many versions of it (A/B/C), idea and it's development came after experience in F-22 development which probably means it's got better CPU which makes it fly, larger production is planned...But there's still some doubt with me about it, it's being exported to other NATO members as well but what's really good you keep just for yourself (F-22, F-15E), don't you?!

[GGTharos]

That's exactly why I keep believing that converting Raptor into Strike Raptor or simply further enhancing it's A2G capability would be reasonable move in the future. Way better than relying on F-35 for BVR combat! However, most of the F-35 users plan replacing their Falcon fleets with F-35 and that's OK, that's the way it should be (I said I think of F-35 as F-16 successor) but the great deal of A2A remains uncovered with the JSF. Which takes us back to a simulated F-35 vs Su-35 combat results despite it's stealthiness. If we compare today with '80s, simulated F-16C vs Su-27P would make the Flanker an underdog, wouldn't it?!

 

 

Actually this is a bad assumption you've made. There's only 180-some raptors, and upgrading them with all sorts of A2G capability would be a waste of money in light of the F-35 now being slated for huge mass production. It makes no sense to upgrade the F-22s for the A2G role when you'll have F-35's to do it ... it puts additional stress and potential problems onthe F-22's ... leave'em do their job -> own the skies.

 

As for the F-16C vs a flanker, I wouldn't want to be the F-16. The AMRAAM helps a bit, but let me put it to you think way: F-15C's beat the daylights out of F-16's in BVR despite having the same weapons.

The R-27 is faster and technically longer ranged than the 120 ... I'll let you draw your conclusions based on just those things.

There are things that can change this around, but I'll leave you with those.

 

 

F-35 is being advertised as affordable (you saw MVSgas' PR video), there's many versions of it (A/B/C), idea and it's development came after experience in F-22 development which probably means it's got better CPU which makes it fly, larger production is planned...But there's still some doubt with me about it, it's being exported to other NATO members as well but what's really good you keep just for yourself (F-22, F-15E), don't you?!

 

The US isn't upgrading their F-15E fleet with things quite as new as the export F-15E+ market, if you've noticed.

 

This is because they're getting the F-35. It actually has similar weight and thrust to an F-15C.

[mvsgas]

...F-35 is being advertised as affordable (you saw MVSgas' PR video)...

:D Not mine, I'm just the geek that post it.

[Vekkinho]

Actually this is a bad assumption you've made. There's only 180-some raptors, and upgrading them with all sorts of A2G capability would be a waste of money

 

 

I didn't think upgrading current / active airframes, I think building new ones ;)!

 

As for the F-16C vs a flanker, I wouldn't want to be the F-16. The AMRAAM helps a bit, but let me put it to you think way: F-15C's beat the daylights out of F-16's in BVR despite having the same weapons.

The R-27 is faster and technically longer ranged than the 120 ... I'll let you draw your conclusions based on just those things.

There are things that can change this around, but I'll leave you with those.

 

AMRAAM helps a bit?! A bit?!! It helps a big time!

 

Faster R-27?!! Are U sure you're talking RL or LOFC?!

 

Longer ranged than AMRAAM?!! Whih one, R-27R1 or R-27ER1?!

[GGTharos]

The RE is slightly longer ranged than AMRAAM.

 

And yes, it helps 'a bit'. The F-16 isn't a long range interceptor ;)

[tflash]

Capability is not simply about swapping an older with a newer aircraft. It is function of

 

- the mission

- the airframe limitations/capacities

- the number of aircraft available

- the mission capable rate

- the number of sorties you can generate

 

The fact that today we are almost never in a scenario where there is a one for one substitution makes that this has become complex arithmetic.

 

Typhoon is a good example: even replacing the implausible F.3 with Typhoon in the QRA role wasn't simple. Because there are less Typhoons. And the mission isn't even complex and can be done as well by an F.3 as a Typhoon. (Key asset is the digital camera to make some souvenir photoshoots of the visiting bear bombers).

 

Substituting Tornado or Jaguar with Typhoon is already immensely more complex.

 

For F-35, it will be the same: before LESS F-35's will effectively replace F-16, F/A-18 and Harrier in a diversity of missions, we are talking 2025.

 

In the beginning, F-35 will do most of its initial missions in no way substantially better than the seasoned oldies.

 

As for the newer missions that only F-35 capabilities allow for, that really is wait and see.

 

The tell-taling V-22 story is there to teach us a lesson how "easy" it is to make new technologies really work.

[Pilotasso]

I didn't think upgrading current / active airframes, I think building new ones ;)!

 

 

 

AMRAAM helps a bit?! A bit?!! It helps a big time!

 

Faster R-27?!! Are U sure you're talking RL or LOFC?!

 

Longer ranged than AMRAAM?!! Whih one, R-27R1 or R-27ER1?!

 

The RE is slightly longer ranged than AMRAAM.

 

And yes, it helps 'a bit'. The F-16 isn't a long range interceptor ;)

 

You can still have an advantage against a superior ranged Alamo by using an ARH missile. SARH missiles give at least an STT lock warning. AMRAAM Allows for stealth attack, i.e. (for others that are reading) the flanker will never know its being attacked untill the missile goes active.

 

This allows you to shoot adversaries and run away from possible response even if your ARH missile has less range than the SARH ones on the flanker. Infact R-27 would need to be much much longer ranged than AMRAAM to tacticaly deny it. My gess is over 50% or possibly more. Right now thay are very evenly matched so the range of the missiles is a non issue. The guidance type easely makes most of the difference in my book.

 

Now: as for the F-16 versus Flanker scenarios at BVR theres a few things other than the missiles at play. The F-16 has a relatively small radar as compared to all possible radars carried in all flankers derivatives. One other aspect is ECCM capabilities. The one on F-16 just isnt cut out to compete with radars just under 1m diameter dish of the same generation found on flankers or F-15's.

 

Facing a Flanker in a F-16 you just dont know what will happen. The ammount of jamming capabilities comming from the FLANKER can or not deny the Falcons BVR to a point where the Flanker will fire much sooner than the falcon dictating who has the upper hand.

 

This part of the engagement depends much of the derivatives of both planes at hand.

 

A block 60 IMHO would decimate the most proliferous flanker derivatives (at least copncerning BVR capabilities): the Su-27S (or SK). This falcon is generations ahead of this flanker in terms of electronics.

 

Trow in the mix of MLU, and other different block versus either the S or MKI or the 35, right now you just cant take much of a conclusion in this aspect.

 

One thing will always remain constant though. The falcon will always be at disavantage in max speed, altitude and range. This is an airframe constraint.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Pilotasso

[GGTharos]

You can still have an advantage against a superior ranged Alamo by using an ARH missile. SARH missiles give at least an STT lock warning. AMRAAM Allows for stealth attack, i.e. (for others that are reading) the flanker will never know its being attacked untill the missile goes active.

 

That isn't correct. The flanker pilot can assume, and there are rumours of rwr's being capable picking up datalinks.

Further, it is often said, especially for the F-16, the STT is the best tracking mode, even for the 120.

 

This allows you to shoot adversaries and run away from possible response even if your ARH missile has less range than the SARH ones on the flanker. Infact R-27 would need to be much much longer ranged than AMRAAM to tacticaly deny it. My gess is over 50% or possibly more. Right now thay are very evenly matched so the range of the missiles is a non issue. The guidance type easely makes most of the difference in my book.

 

Again this isn't correct. This isn't LOCERF where you launch a spam of missiles, turn around and run away to bring more. ;)

In real life you actually need to shoot down your opponent, because once you turn around you're out of fuel - once you're out of fuel those bandits are taking over your CAP.

 

The R-27RE is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the AIM-120, and it capable of putting a bandit on the defensive from a range where the 120 might not be difficult to defeat kinematically. This is why it is employed best by aircraft who can outdetect their opponent and sprint high and fast.

 

Now: as for the F-16 versus Flanker scenarios at BVR theres a few things other than the missiles at play. The F-16 has a relatively small radar as compared to all possible radars carried in all flankers derivatives. One other aspect is ECCM capabilities. The one on F-16 just isnt cut out to compete with radars just under 1m diameter dish of the same generation found on flankers or F-15's.

 

The radar is the first problem - there's more.

 

Facing a Flanker in a F-16 you just dont know what will happen. The ammount of jamming capabilities comming from the FLANKER can or not deny the Falcons BVR to a point where the Flanker will fire much sooner than the falcon dictating who has the upper hand.

 

The sorbitsyja is a very capable piece of kit.

 

A block 60 IMHO would decimate the most proliferous flanker derivatives (at least copncerning BVR capabilities): the Su-27S (or SK). This falcon is generations ahead of this flanker in terms of electronics.

 

It might match them, but decimate? Dubious. It's no F-15C, and F-15C's eat little falcons for breakfast in BVR. ;)

The F-15 is the flanker's match, not the F-16 ... even with the newest kit.

 

Trow in the mix of MLU, and other different block versus either the S or MKI or the 35, right now you just cant take much of a conclusion in this aspect.

 

One thing will always remain constant though. The falcon will always be at disavantage in max speed, altitude and range. This is an airframe constraint.

 

The F-16's original purpose is the constraint that the other constraints come from.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You can still have an advantage against a superior ranged Alamo by using an ARH missile. SARH missiles give at least an STT lock warning. AMRAAM Allows for stealth attack, i.e. (for others that are reading) the flanker will never know its being attacked untill the missile goes active.

Maybe news to you, but Flankers do carry R-77, which has a longer range then AMRAAM. Those F-16's would never know they are being attacked until the R-77 goes active.

 

And yes, the ARH have advantage over SARH missiles.

[Pilotasso]

R-77 is not a widespread missile (not even in russia wich has only a handfull of modern flankers to fire it from), the AMRAAM is. India has the datalinkeless RVVAE of wich it wants to get rid off for good reasons. On top of that of the flanker examples flying today only a small number of them are capable of firing that missile. The vast majority of the planes in service in russia or exported variants are older standards capable of firing only SARH missiles. But this referred in my last post that you ignored.

 

Data regarding R-77 is rather conflicting when compared the the AIM120A. AIM120C7 and D versions are classified. you realy have no idea if the 77 has any advantage left at all, if it ever had.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Pilotasso]

That isn't correct. The flanker pilot can assume, and there are rumours of rwr's being capable picking up datalinks.

Further, it is often said, especially for the F-16, the STT is the best tracking mode, even for the 120.

 

I might not have been completely clear but the first half of my post was aimed specialy at R-27 versus AIm120. Only the second half do I put F-16 versus flankers.

 

Pilot assumption that a an ARH missile is under way is a very precarious situation considering that the other side has better enemy launch tell tale clues.

 

There might be Rwr's capable of picking datalinks, if your speaking of Link 16 and superior then you have an added problem telling plane to plane links from plane to missile links, put there budy launch and things get interesting ;)

 

STT will always be the best tracking mode for mech arrays, but depending on ROE, mission objective and tactics you might want to avoid it, alerting away your target before time. You do have the choice.

 

 

Again this isn't correct. This isn't LOCERF where you launch a spam of missiles, turn around and run away to bring more. ;)

In real life you actually need to shoot down your opponent, because once you turn around you're out of fuel - once you're out of fuel those bandits are taking over your CAP.

 

 

Firing several missiles is a real tactic but that was not what I had in mind. Rather that F-poling an oponent using SARH makes if far easier to disrupt its attack while AMRAAM is already under way for SA reasons I mentioned that are inherent from a more modern radar using TWS mode.

 

 

The R-27RE is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the AIM-120, and it capable of putting a bandit on the defensive from a range where the 120 might not be difficult to defeat kinematically. This is why it is employed best by aircraft who can outdetect their opponent and sprint high and fast.

 

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. But this is too specific. You said yourself that R-27ER no longer enjoys much advantage over late C and D models.

 

 

It might match them, but decimate? Dubious. It's no F-15C, and F-15C's eat little falcons for breakfast in BVR. ;)

The F-15 is the flanker's match, not the F-16 ... even with the newest kit.

 

 

 

The F-16's original purpose is the constraint that the other constraints come from.

 

Yes, the F-16 was never meant to defeat the flanker. Had Russia suscessfuly fielded advanced flankers when it first intended and kept them up to date we wouldnt have this discussion, however it was left behind, its planes got old to the point its biggest and badest can be put on unconfortable ratings.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

R-77 is not a widespread missile (not even in russia wich has only a handfull of modern flankers to fire it from), the AMRAAM is.

There is no need for more R-77's. That's why it is not widespread. If Russia or India need more missiles, they'll get them. It is very wrong to build your military on money that you don't have and with the weapons that you don't need.

 

On top of that of the flanker examples flying today only a small number of them are capable of firing that missile. The vast majority of the planes in service in russia or exported variants are older standards capable of firing only SARH missiles.

Currently Russia does not need many Flankers that can fire R-77's. Russia is not in the war with anybody who can even come close to Russia's current AA capability. So why wasting money on weapon systems that you don't need?

 

But this referred in my last post that you ignored.

With all due respect, I do read everything you said. But I can not respond to everything you said. It is just not practical.

 

Data regarding R-77 is rather conflicting when compared the the AIM120A. AIM120C7 and D versions are classified. you realy have no idea if the 77 has any advantage left at all, if it ever had.

You (neither do I) really have no idea what is going on with current R-77 program and what software and hardware is in the missile. You and I speculate when we talk about this highly classified weapons systems.

[Groove]

Hajduk, #241 doesnt look like speculation. Or did you watched RT, again ? ;) :D

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk, #241 doesnt look like speculation. Or did you watched RT, again ? ;) :D

I watched RT again. :smilewink:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

BTW, since this is an F-35 thread, the F-35 can carry latest AMRAAM's internally. Those AMRAAM's had to have their wings clipped so that they could fit in internal bays of F-22 and F-35. AMRAAM's are now less maneuverable?

[mvsgas]

BTW, since this is an F-35 thread, the F-35 can carry latest AMRAAM's internally. Those AMRAAM's had to have their wings clipped so that they could fit in internal bays of F-22 and F-35. AMRAAM's are now less maneuverable?

 

I don't know if they are less or more maneuverable but, AIM-120C and beyond have smaller fins to fit in weapons bay. My guess, they where designed with the F-22/F-35 in mind, considering that the F-22 has been in development for 20 years (give or take) and AIM-120C are relatively new.

[Pilotasso]

All 120 missiles produced in the last few years have all clipped wings. The manufacturer claims the impact as negligeble.

 

AIm120A's and B's are the ones with the older wings. A's have all but been retired but theres still large stocks of the B version in europe. All verions up to the C7 can be carried in every teen F, Eurofighter and gripen planes.

[GGTharos]

In practice maneiverability doesn't suffer. Most missiles are capable of exceeding their structural integrity while maneuvering, but this only happens typically at lower altitudes during the peak of their speed.

 

Lowering the maneuverability makes no difference to the target, because the missile will still have more energy/g available than the target.

 

This is why I keep telling you that this 'more maneuverable' label on the R-77 is fairly meaningless ;)