The F-35 Thread

[Lucas_From_Hell]

So the question becomes, can the F-35 when configured in air-air role successfully mix it up with enemy fighters (PAK-FA, SU-35s, or what have you) during CAP coverage? Will they be able to augment the F-22 there successfully?

 

These are questions which haven't been answered yet, but which need to be addressed. I still feel the F-22 would have been ideal as CAP assets, and that the decision to rely on the F-35 to pick up slack in that area is a mistake.

 

 

I don't see how a flight of F-35 cannot provide cover for a strike package against fighters, especially since it can mix up with the attack element making it harder to see who is the real target.

 

Even up against stealth fighters, you need them to find you. If they do, and you can track them reasonably, it's likely both parties will fire whatever IR missiles they have at each other way before going "vertical scissors Kobra kung fu guns TVC" on each other. Finally, even when this does happen it's all down to tactics and a number of other factors like numbers, weapons load, fuel/distance (ie how long can you engage for before BINGO), ROE and etc. which combined mean WAY more than who can climb/turn better.

 

In fact, go read that thread on this section about the Soviet evaluation of the F-5E versus the MiG-21 and MiG-23, which outperform the Tiger greatly. Says a lot about how far parameters get you in a knife fight, whenever it does happen.

[GGTharos]

And they're planning to arm the F35 with laz0rz already.

[fltsimbuff]

The F-16A certainly had a large range advantage over the F-15A and likely the C without FAST Packs (Seldom used on the C anyway)

 

 

In an air-to-air configuration, the F-16 has a higher fuel fraction and lower specific fuel consumption than the F-15. An F-15C IP at the Fighter Weapons School, (then) Major Mike "Boa" Straight, wrote an article about this in the Fighter Weapons Review in 1988 or 1989. I'm not just making this up. On-station time, acceleration to intercept speed and range advantages go to the Viper.

 

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

 

 

Yes the F-16 has Smaller radar but also a smaller RCS ;)

 

 

Its not your fault - aero isn't simply big plane is better.

 

In typical configurations the F-15C had better range than the F-16C/D (by a significant margin).

 

It could carry fuel tanks without significantly impacting the weapons capacity it could carry. The F-16 with CFMs would change things, if we would shell out for them.

 

The F-16 was also very limited by its lack of BVR missiles until the AMRAAM. The F-16 was built as a light-weight fighter, the F-15 as an air superiority fighter. While the F-16 is a sleek, nimble fighter, the F-15 is undefeated in the air-air role.

 

AFAIK In all the F-15C engagements the ROE for BVR could be and was always satisfied with an EID only - and IFF failed once leading to a 2v1 Vs a MiG-29.

 

Thats from https://ospreypublishing.com/f-15c-eagle-units-in-combat-pb

 

Other aircraft were not fitted with the required technology like the F-14s to play a part sure - do you have a define ROE document for 1991 - not the most interesting thing got to say.

 

Again, F-15s (or any fighters) rarely fired BVR. There were numerous occasions where IFF didn't work properly even when it was used, sometimes returning friendly on enemy units and vice versa. Many fights closed to WVR in order to get a VID, or closed to WVR while waiting for AWACs to double-check that there were no friendlies in the area.

 

While the ROE for F-15s were less stringent, they still most often resulted in needing VID.

[Basher54321]

In typical configurations the F-15C had better range than the F-16C/D (by a significant margin).

 

We are talking F-16 A-A - you remember you wrongly assumed it couldn't do the job of the F-15C A-A so therefore the F-35 cant do the F-22s job

 

And no I don't think for one second you have any idea on range comparisons with what you define as a "typical" configurations.

 

 

The F-16 was also very limited by its lack of BVR missiles until the AMRAAM.

 

Yeah I have already told you this

 

 

 

Again, F-15s (or any fighters) rarely fired BVR. There were numerous occasions where IFF didn't work properly even when it was used, sometimes returning friendly on enemy units and vice versa. Many fights closed to WVR in order to get a VID, or closed to WVR while waiting for AWACs to double-check that there were no friendlies in the area.

 

While the ROE for F-15s were less stringent, they still most often resulted in needing VID.

 

 

It is irrelevant at what range they fired - not that the actual range has ever been documented - they only needed an EID to satisfy BVR and fire- do you have difficulty with English?

 

The F-15s never needed VID as part of the ROE as I have already told you. If you want to refute this then you need to provide a lot more than a very basic understanding :thumbup:

Edited July 7, 2015 by Basher54321

[StrongHarm]

There are a lot of assumptions being made.. such there being any chance that IFF could still be unreliable, and the F-35 lacking in WVR capabilities. There's too little known about the F-35's actual capabilities and subsystems to assume anything. What we do know for certain; the F-35 has breakthrough SA and engage abilities, the *War is Boring* report was falsified to enflame the F-35 debate (see below), and the same people who designed this bird made the SR-71.. 48 years ago. I'm putting my money on Lockheed.

 

 

The report is the warped result of someone taking advantage of partial truths to further an agenda... aren't you the least bit curious as to why any professional attached to a military test facility would want to leak this information to *War is Boring*?

 

Truth: An F-16 was involved with an F-35 in a dogfight scenario to test the F-35

Falsification: The F-16 was just a maneuvering reference, they weren't trying to best one another

 

Truth: The F-35 didn't have the same energy retention as the F-35

Falsification: The F-35 wasn't using all flight surface assistance software available (intentionally as it was part of the test), and the test was done in the F-16s sweet spot.. it was conducted to check for unexpected airframe response (hardware only) to out of envelope maneuvers.

 

Here's an interesting post at The Aviation Forum by someone that's a test pilot attached to the same squadron. He has a masters degree focused on flight test, flight dynamics and control system design; facts with no agenda:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?135460-test-pilot-quot-F-35-can-t-dogfight-quot&p=2237974#post2237974

 

Here's the response from the USAF on the matter:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/01/pentagon-defends-f-35-after-report-says-it-cant-dogfight/

 

Here's the F-35 results at Green Flag 2015 (A+):

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-unscathed-hostile-fire-green-flag

 

Here's my theory on the agenda from a previous post in the thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2428861

 

Personal Observation: The whole matter seems to be a hard hitting revelation that points to conspiracy and incompetence.. but that's your Hollywood intellect speaking to you. It's all being taken out of context. Similar sensationalist crap happened with the F-15 when it was going through acceptance testing.. the end result? 104 kills 0 losses and money well spent. And how did military and DOD personnel working with the bird respond to the media circus? Giggles and gets back to work; it's all inconsequential.

 

Even if the F-35 had subpar energy retention, if the F-16 were able to find it.. and then also perform the impossibility of sneaking up on it.. the F-35 pilot would look through the cockpit floor, see the threat, lock it immediately, and fire an all aspect missile at it before they got into these maneuvers. I love the F-16.. but it's not 5th gen. It would never stand a chance.

[OutOnTheOP]

The level of tech of the weapons had nothing to do with most of the WVR battles during that time. It was mostly ROE, which we cannot predict.

 

Why do you think the MkI eyeball is the only means of acquiring positive ID of a target? Modern radars, operating at short wavelengths, can take photolike 3d images of targets. I would be willing to bet the F-35 can show you a radar "photo" of exactly what you're looking at.

 

And besides that, I'd imagine the FLIR sensors have a PID range against aircraft in the tens of kilometers.

Edited July 8, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Revelation]

Why do you think the MkI eyeball is the only means of acquiring positive ID of a target? Modern radars, operating at short wavelengths, can take photolike 3d images of targets. I would be willing to bet the F-35 can show you a radar "photo" of exactly what you're looking at.

 

And besides that, I'd imagine the FLIR sensors have a PID range against aircraft in the tens of kilometers.

 

The F-35's radar can. It is even good enough to be able to identify what munitions the aircraft is carrying. It can also identify ground targets when operated in A/G mode. Not to mention the F-35 has the best SA for any pilot in any airframe in service today.

 

Does that mean the tech will always work - no. Before the tech existed there were and continue to be FF incidents.

[StrongHarm]

I understand that MIST-IR and EOTS can visually auto-validate targets in the distant BVR (with stable feed to JHMCS). I also read that the F-35 has 'Lock-On After Launch' capability with uplink, and can actually use the AIM-9X BVR and all-aspect. The IFF has an additional interrogation step before launch that does automated multipoint validation fed to integrated SA cues.

[zantron]

The USAF announced that the F-35 operated in Green Flag this year with several kills, more time on station and targets destroyed than the A-10, and was the only bird that took zero losses. Turn energy becomes irrelevant when the pilot can look down *through* the cockpit floor, immediately lock a bogie, and launch an all aspect missile at it with an OODA loop that takes a fraction of the time of all previous known sensors.

against any russian aircraft right now (i.e. cold war relics) and the goofy stealth fighter theyre making the f-35 will win, bvr at least lol. so what happens in 2030 or 2035 when it goes up against stealth drones? and thats only 15 years away.

 

the one poster talked about the f-22 sneaking up on an iranian f-4 from behind, so why couldn't theoretical drone stealth fighters or new manned stealth fighters coming out of turkey or asia, whether china, korea, indonesia or japan do the same to the f-35? now its a infrared missile (or more likely some sort of infrared locking future laser pod) dogfight. the most likely scenario is, against a developed enemy, there be a few manned stealth fighters and a whole bunch of drone stealth fighters (unlike the f-16 will be able to pull like 40 gs) it will have to deal with.

 

it just seems to me the f-35 will be either even or obsolete like battleships about 10-15 years into its (full) operation life.

[outlawal2]

against any russian aircraft right now (i.e. cold war relics) and the goofy stealth fighter theyre making the f-35 will win, bvr at least lol. so what happens in 2030 or 2035 when it goes up against stealth drones? and thats only 15 years away.

 

So now you guys are going to bash the F-35 based on pretty much nothing and ask questions about how it may fare competing with airplanes that do not exist and are more than 15 years out?

 

You guys really kill me with this stuff you really do..

 

So how is the F-35 going to compete when the Alien Invasion hits in 2049?

"Could it be...?" Says the wild haired Georgio Tsoukalas...

 

DEAR GOD

[Basher54321]

 

the one poster talked about the f-22 sneaking up on an iranian f-4 from behind, so why couldn't theoretical drone stealth fighters or new manned stealth fighters coming out of turkey or asia, whether china, korea, indonesia or japan do the same to the f-35? now its a infrared missile (or more likely some sort of infrared locking future laser pod) dogfight. the most likely scenario is, against a developed enemy, there be a few manned stealth fighters and a whole bunch of drone stealth fighters (unlike the f-16 will be able to pull like 40 gs) it will have to deal with.

 

 

Here's the thing - sneaking up on aircraft that only have RWRs and eyeballs is one thing (relatively easy) - sneaking up on an aircraft with a 360 degree optical tracking system like EODAS is another.

 

You could make a drone pull 40Gs with the effort and money (Be very Heavy) - but it's far easier to make a missile that pulls more Gs - so there is likely no real benefit to it.

[SimFreak]

I wonder how much of this discussion would go away if you just rename the jet. Instead of F-35, call it A-35 or even B-35. Personally I like B/A-35.

[Ktulu2]

From what I know, F is fighter, b bomber and A attack(ground). So if you put anything else than F/A, you are kind if misleading... And a «B/A» aircraft would be a mix of bombing...and bombing so just B-35. Even the F-35 isn't really correct to me, as it looks like it'll have quite a similar rôle to an F/A-18

[SimFreak]

From what I know, F is fighter, b bomber and A attack(ground). So if you put anything else than F/A, you are kind if misleading... And a «B/A» aircraft would be a mix of bombing...and bombing so just B-35. Even the F-35 isn't really correct to me, as it looks like it'll have quite a similar rôle to an F/A-18

 

Obviously I'm joking. If it's designed to replace F-16, it is physically unable. So scratch that F off. Some say it's designed to replace A-10, but still unable. Scratch that A off. B? It doesn't have enough load to do B. So scratch that off as well. What do we have left? Dash-35. :D

[Ktulu2]

U-35 for unable... (just kidding I know it will be able to do the job)

[ФрогФут]

I wonder how much of this discussion would go away if you just rename the jet. Instead of F-35, call it A-35 or even B-35. Personally I like B/A-35.

Than there are many questions about those, who buy A-35 to replace fighters.:)

[Snoopy]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/10/dunford-pentagon-reconsidering-planned-size-of-f-35-fighter-jet-fleet/

 

The U.S. Defense Department is rethinking how many F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets it plans to buy as part of its most expensive weapons acquisition program.

 

The Pentagon officially plans to purchase a total of 2,457 F-35s, including 14 development aircraft, at an estimated cost of $391 billion, according to acquisition documents published in December and released in April.

 

But that quantity may change as automatic spending caps force officials to make trade-offs between investing in future technology and responding to current threats, from pro-Russian separatists in Europe, to territorial disputes involving China in Asia, to Islamic militants in the Middle East.

 

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, nominated by the Obama administration to replace Army Gen. Martin Dempsey as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he retires in a few months, this week said the eventual size of the F-35 fleet may change, as previously reported by Marcus Weisgerber of DefenseOne.

 

“Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number,” he said in written remarks submitted as part of his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

Lockheed Martin Corp., the world’s largest defense contractor, is building three models of the F-35 for the U.S. military, including the F-35A for the Air Force for use on conventional runways, F-35B for the Marine Corps for use on amphibious assault ships and the F-35C for the Navy for use on aircraft carriers.

 

In addition, the governments of eight countries are helping to fund development of the aircraft, including Britain, Canada, Australia, Norway, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands and Denmark. Yet many allies who committed to buying the stealthy fifth-generation fighters have in recent years scaled back their orders or rethought their plans.

 

Italy reduced its planned purchase of 131 aircraft to 90 aircraft and the Netherlands cut its order of 85 aircraft to 37 aircraft, according to a 2014 Congressional Research Service report. Canada is reconsidering whether to even buy the F-35 and Australia this week reportedly nixed its plans to purchase the F-35B jump-jet variant of the aircraft because doing so would have required too many modifications to its two largest assault ships.

 

To be sure, Dunford defended the F-35 and the current acquisition plan.

 

“With projected adversarial threats challenging our current capabilities in coming years, the Joint Strike Fighter is a vital component of our effort to ensure the Joint Force maintains dominance in the air,” he said. “Until the analysis is complete, we need to pursue the current scheduled quantity buy to preclude creating an overall near-term tactical fighter shortfall.”

 

The committee headed by Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona and a frequent critic of the F-35 program and other big-ticket acquisition programs, had asked the general whether the Pentagon can afford spending as much as $15 billion a year on the aircraft over the next couple of decades for a design that will be 30 years old at the time of completion.

 

Dunford replied, “Fifth-generation fighter aircraft, including the F-35, are critical as we contend with the technological advancements of near-peer competitors. We must ensure that we do not allow shortfalls in fighter capability or capacity to develop. The Department has been working diligently to make the overall cost per F-35 more affordable. Additionally, there will continue to be critical updates throughout the life cycle of the F-35 that will ensure the platform maintains a tactical advantage.”

[Tirak]

No new news in that. The number is always under review, and there's just as much of a chance it goes up as it goes down. Also, the Aussie plans for the F-35B were never serious. People banging on that drum don't seem to realize that. :doh:

[Snoopy]

People banging on that drum don't seem to realize that. :doh:

 

Who's banging a drum I simply shared a news article.

[tflash]

ORI before IOC : http://news.usni.org/2015/07/13/f-35b-begins-new-operational-readiness-inspection-this-week-before-ioc-decision

[AlphaOneSix]

Finally something positive in the news...

 

Ten Signs The F-35 Fighter Program Is Becoming A Smashing Success

[Emu]

F-35 Integrated Core Processor Specification:

 

http://www2.l-3com.com/displays/pdfs/redesign/ICP(2011)_LR.pdf

 

O p e n S y s t e m A rc h i t e c t u re ( O S A ) S e c u re P ro c e s s i n g

 

The Integrated Core Processor (ICP) is an OSA-based

processing technology providing unmatched modularity

and software partitioning flexibility for military processing

applications. Based upon L-3 Display Systems’ Prism

architecture and technology, the L-3 DS ICP allows

independent software development by Primes and User/

Operators within a time and space partitioned environment.

The L-3 DS ICP is currently fielded on the F-35 Lightning

II Panoramic Cockpit Display Subsystem and the C-130J

Special Mission Display Processor programs.

O p e n S y s t e m A rc h i t e c t u re ( O S A ) S e c u re P ro c e s s i n g

 

KEY FEATURES & BENEFITS

• Open architecture design

– Power PC processing modules

– Graphics/video processing

– Green Hills® INTEGRITY®-178B / MILS real-time operating

system

– ARINC 653 partitioned environment

– OpenGL Embedded System-Safety Critical (ES-SC)

graphics

• Modular

– I/O tailorable for unique customer applications

– Growth provisioning

• Eliminates federated boxes through embedded applications

and functions

• Unmatched situational and information awareness

• Weight and power savings with reliability/LCC improvement

• Redundancy in a single LRU

1 ATR SHORT 1 ATR LONG

TWO HIGH PERFORMANCE POWER

SUPPLIES

Input Power 28VDC 28VDC

Voltage Range 16-29 Volts 16-29 Volts

Transient Suppression Included Included

Power Dissipation 300 Watts (max.) 450 Watts (max.)

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

Weight 36 lbs 50 lbs (max.)

Dimensions 10.2”(w) x 7.6”(h) x 12.3”(d)

w/Fan Pack: 10.2”(w) x 7.6”(h) x 13.5”(d)

10.2”(w) x 7.6”(h) x 19”(d)

w/Fan Pack: 10.2”(w) x 7.6”(h) x 19.6”(d)

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

Temperature Operating: -40°C to +55°C, +71°C (intm.)

Storage: -57°C to +85°C

Operating: -40°C to +55°C, +71°C (intm.)

Storage: -57°C to +85°C

Shock 20 Gs (basic), 40 Gs (crash) 20 Gs (basic), 40 Gs (crash)

Altitude 0-50,000 ft 0-50,000 ft

Reliability 7,000 hours (AIC) 5,000 hours (AIC)

EMI/EMC MIL-STD-460, CE102, CS101, 114-116,

KE102-103, RS103, lightning

MIL-STD-460, CE102, CS101, 114-116,

KE102-103, RS103, lightning

PROCESSING

CPU Up to 2 System Processor/Display

Processor Modules:

• System Processor:

» >2900 DMIPS, 1MB L2 Cache

» 512MB DRAM, 256MB Flash

» 128KB NOVRAM

• Display Processor:

» >2200 DMIPS, 1MB L2 Cache

» 256MB DRAM, 128MB Flash

Up to 3 System Processor/Display

Processor Modules:

• System Processor:

» >2900 DMIPS, 1MB L2 Cache

» 512MB DRAM, 256MB Flash

» 128KB NOVRAM

• Display Processor:

» >2200 DMIPS, 1MB L2 Cache

» 256MB DRAM, 128MB Flash

Video / Graphics Up to 2 Video/Graphics Processors:

• Supports graphics only, video only,

graphics overlay on video

• Supports standard PC video & HDTV

formats up to 2560x1600

Up to 4 Video/Graphics Processors:

• Supports graphics only, video only,

graphics overlay on video

• Supports standard PC video & HDTV

formats up to 2560x1600

SOFTWARE

Operating System Green Hills® INTEGRITY®-178B / MILS Green Hills® INTEGRITY®-178B / MILS

[StrongHarm]

AWESOME articles Alpha and Emu, thanks for sharing!

[Emu]

http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

 

It’s simply fascinating to watch every hipster who’s ever played Ace Combat sit back and pontificate about the downfalls of an aircraft that hasn’t even reached IOC. It’s like a renaissance of air combat.

 

As the first fighter in the digital age, the F-35 has allowed people to watch and read about the results of flight tests in near real time, drawing their own conclusions as to the success or failure of the program. Security clearance? Who needs it? Wikipedia has everything that anyone who’s ever played Battlefield 4 on Playstation needs to know in order to realize that the F-35 is a sitting duck if you happen to get it after a respawn.

 

I’m just a lowly fourth-gen pilot, so my opinions might not be as valid as someone who’s read a leaked FOUO report on the internet, but before the million-man Strawman Army reaches full strength, it may be time to inject some sanity into this discussion:....

[Erdem]

Just another whiny post from that guy that adds nothing to the discussion.