The F-35 Thread

[garrya]

Which is blatantly false, esp. for aircraft such as the Su-27, F-14, F-16, MiG-29 etc. which all feature an airfoil shaped fuselage.

You are talking like whole main body is an airfoil as in case of the B-2 , but in fact only a small part of it is. And how relevance is it if you turn at a high positive AoA ?

 

 

It's you who don't understand what I'm writing. I said that CL & CLmax figures usually aren't provided for pilots in the manual, instead they are given EM charts. Hence why I asked.

which i already answered , Soviet tend to give CL and L/d ratio chart instead of EM chart. Regardless you can also measured CLmax from EM chart

 

 

It's the G limitations of the pods which matter, if they aren't rated for more than say 7.5 G's well then that's the load limit unless you wanna lose it.

I dont think F-15C carry targeting pod. Moreover , we could not get any more vague than this. First , we assumed those aircraft carried 3 pod because of a subjective chart. Then we assumed altitude they tested those 3 aircraft. Now we start to assumed Glimit for sniper-XR targeting pod ? what next ? how about fuel load ? how about pilot experience with their AC, hell we dont even know how many degrees are though different to begin with

 

 

So you actually seriously believe the F-35 will be able to match the Su-27 in ITR?

by all mean , question is at what speed

 

 

 

 

 

As for the EF2000, it's a delta wing with a very low wing loading. It's wing loading is approaching half that of the F-35, so do you believe the CLmax is also half? It isn't...

Typhoon wing loading is better than F-35 but not actually that much better practically speaking.

F-35 with full internal fuel can fly even further than a Typhoon with 3EFT

 

So we can assumed that an F-35 with 50% internal fuel will have around same combat radius as a Typhoon with 100% internal fuel. In such condition :

F-35 wing loading will be : ( 13199 +8382/2)/ 42.7 = 407 kg/m2

Typhoon wingloading will be : ( 11000 +5000)/51.2 = 312.5kg/m2

From those value we have 312.5/407*100 = 76.7 , so different in wingloading is about 23%. Put weapons on and it will affect Typhoon more because it is a lighter airplane

Now obviously neither me or you know the exact CLmax of Typhoon , but delta dont have CLmax that high , Mirage 2000 for example has CLmax of 0.9

Obviously the cannard of Typhoon would help improved CLmax , however due to location , it likely be more useful at supersonic rather than subsonic maneuver

Another point is that Typhoon is also AoA limited at 25 degrees

 

These are not extreme AoA turns (which 40-60 AoA would be), they are simply high rate:

That first pic looks like vapor concentration when aircraft turn rather than vortex , all aircraft can produce those vapor when they do a hard turn

For F-35 , the vortex shape can be seen reasonably clear

 

Same for its cousion J-31

 

That limit can be pulled through by the pilot or simply turned off.

Yes , but the limit for Su-27 is where its CLmax located , go pass it and you are in a stall.

Question is with AoA limit at 50 degrees of F-35 , we simply dont know where exactly is its CLmax ( cant be 50 because that simply too high )

 

Also lets see where the F-35's AoA limiter will be at in the end when 9 G's are to be pulled at faster speeds.

At faster speed ( mach 0.8 ) , Su-27 AoA also limited to 20 degrees , thrust reduced its CL at that point to 1.45

 

 

The MiG-29 also features an airfoil shaped lifting body, hence it again produces a lot of lift simply by virtue of its very large available lifting area.

No I didn't because the Su-27 can generate a high ITR without producing as much drag in the process because of its large optimized lifting area, which also provides it a great STR at low speeds despite not the best T/W ratio.

Your whole argument has been centered around " this or or that looks like it has more optimized lifting body " but you still have not put up a single CL number to demonstrate how much more effective they will be ( especially considered at high AoA ,where there not that much different between an airfoil without LEF and a flat plate ) Not only that extremely vague , it also lead us go nowhere

 

 

A CLmax at 35 deg will be at low speed, same for the other two which will most likely have a CLmax at a similar AoA. This is also quite clear when looking at the ITR figures.

The thing is F-16 cannot reach 35 degrees AoA , not even at slow speed. in fact it cannot even reach 25 degrees AoA at 9 G regardless of speed. Even at slow speed , 9G turn instantly mean AoA limited down to 15 degrees , while at the same time Su-27 can go up to 26 degrees

 

The F-14 is no slouch in acceleration

Much slower than F-16 which already slower than F-35 at dogfight speed , and F-35 also has a massive yaw rate

 

 

 

 

So you don't see how the F-14's fuselage is a giant airfoil whilst the F-35's is very boxy? and neither do you see how an airfoil shape produces lift more efficiently than a boxy shape?

I dont see how F-14 is a giant airfoil , the 2 engines are obvious no airfoil shape there, neither is the nose , So that left you with the middle section that looks kinda flat but then F-35has a massive flat area too. Then are age old questions regarding Vortex generators, how much CL will they improve?, then negative stability play a role too, both aircraft have massive tail but one counter lift while the other add up to it.

 

garrya, you're confusing certain pure (as in wingless) lifting body aircraft, which were designed to test the flight characteristics of a flyable re-entry spaceshuttle, with the airfoil shaped fuselage designs of fighters also refered to as featuring a "lifting body".

Do they produce lift or not ? yes , regardless of looking boxy

 

That's the problem, it lacks the L/W & L/D ratio of the F-16, F-14, F-15, Su-27 etc, in other words it has to resort to extreme AoA maneuvers to produce a high ITR that lasts extremely briefly due to the drag generated.

About L/W : majority problem with F-35 wingloading came from its massive fuel load , equalize mission profile and it looks much better.

About L/D : there is not even a single curve that showed its L/D at the moment so any argument regarding that is guess work at best ( and a bad one because again there just no evidence to prove either way)

About using high AoA to get a high ITR : that exactly how su-27 get its massive ITR as you can clearly sen in the table in the previous page ,about 9 degrees higher in AoA than F-16. And once again you dont know F-35 AoA limit at 9G yet and you also dont know ihow much is its CLmax or where that located.

To sum up, had F-35 been that shitty in dogfight, i dont think that many pilot would prefer it in most set up

Edited November 20, 2016 by garrya

[garrya]

Next up in the countermeasure arsenal is likely lasers that will blind incoming IR missiles

They can already do this , in fact F-35 has an internal DIRCM system too

 

and later when the power increases even set off warheads on radar guided missiles..

 

The moment you got this , speed and agility is irrelevance

[Bushmanni]

...

 

Saying that there "could" be a time when countermeasures overtake AAMs in a systematic waIy says nothing of how likely it is to transpire, or when. Force planners don't get the luxury of making procurement decisions based on what "might potentially happen eventually", they have to make some sort of judgement about what is probable in a given timeframe.

 

If we (for argument's sake) reach the point where Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) render AAM's obsolete during the F35's lifetime then kinematics will almost certainly be FAR less relevant than ever before.

...

 

DIRCM is already reality, all that potential F-35 opponents need to do is have funding available to get equipped with it. Lasers that can shoot down missiles and other planes are still somewhere in the unknown future, although the technology to make them reality has already been proven in practice to my knowledge. It's just a matter of time to mature the technology and then build an operational system.

 

While waiting for the laser you need to be prepared to get into gun fights with enemy stealth fighters. I think it's likely that there's going to be a relevant stealth fighter opponent operational before a proper laser weapon gets operational on F-35.

[garrya]

Regarding boxy vs tunnels fusalege , here is something from Johnwill again (one of his old post ). With his expertise in the field his guesstimate/speculation is far more accurate than anyone here

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by garrya

[Hummingbird]

You are talking like whole main body is an airfoil as in case of the B-2 , but in fact only a small part of it is. And how relevance is it if you turn at a high positive AoA ?

 

Small part??? The F-16 alone produces around 40% of its lift from it's fuselage!

 

which i already answered , Soviet tend to give CL and L/d ratio chart instead of EM chart. Regardless you can also measured CLmax from EM chart

 

and then why exactly do you later ask me to provide the Clmax when you've already got an EM chart??? You're contradicting yourself round every corner.

 

Typhoon wing loading is better than F-35 but not actually that much better practically speaking.

F-35 with full internal fuel can fly even further than a Typhoon with 3EFT

So we can assumed that an F-35 with 50% internal fuel will have around same combat radius as a Typhoon with 100% internal fuel. In such condition :

F-35 wing loading will be : ( 13199 +8382/2)/ 42.7 = 407 kg/m2

Typhoon wingloading will be : ( 11000 +5000)/51.2 = 312.5kg/m2

From those value we have 312.5/407*100 = 76.7 , so different in wingloading is about 23%. Put weapons on and it will affect Typhoon more because it is a lighter airplane

Now obviously neither me or you know the exact CLmax of Typhoon , but delta dont have CLmax that high , Mirage 2000 for example has CLmax of 0.9

Obviously the cannard of Typhoon would help improved CLmax , however due to location , it likely be more useful at supersonic rather than subsonic maneuver

Another point is that Typhoon is also AoA limited at 25 degrees

 

 

The Mirage 2000 has about the same WL as the EF, as well as an AoA limiter, and it is capable of matching the Su-27 in ITR, taken straight from the EM charts. So what does that tell you?

 

That first pic looks like vapor concentration when aircraft turn rather than vortex , all aircraft can produce those vapor when they do a hard turn

 

No they are clearly vortices generated by the wing gloves which act just like LERXs, and it's also descirbed in detail.

 

From a NASA Flow Visualization Study of the F-14:

"The F-14 model was investigated to determine the vortex flow field development, vortex path, and vortex breakdown characteristics as a function of angle of attack and sideslip. Vortex flows were found to develop on the highly swept glove and on the upper surface of the forebody."

 

The above is exactly what we see on the pictures posted earlier:

 

As well as others:

 

 

 

 

Has nothing to do with the high speed vapor concentrations you're refering to, there are plently of pictures that with F-14 as well and it looks nothing like the above. An example:

 

Yes , but the limit for Su-27 is where its CLmax located , go pass it and you are in a stall.

 

How do you know that? Do you have a CLmax figure for a higher AoA than 24 deg?

 

You claimed yourself that the F-16 didn't reach it's CLmax until an AoA of ~35, and yet the Su-27 is supposed to reach its own at 24 deg? I don't buy it.

 

At faster speed ( mach 0.8 ) , Su-27 AoA also limited to 20 degrees , thrust reduced its CL at that point to 1.45

 

Thrust?? No the AoA limit, and at mach 0.5 it's limited to 24 deg.

 

Your whole argument has been centered around " this or or that looks like it has more optimized lifting body " but you still have not put up a single CL number to demonstrate how much more effective they will be ( especially considered at high AoA ,where there not that much different between an airfoil without LEF and a flat plate ) Not only that extremely vague , it also lead us go nowhere

 

Why on earth would I want to put up CL figures when I have EM charts??

 

You're babbling now.

 

The thing is F-16 cannot reach 35 degrees AoA , not even at slow speed. in fact it cannot even reach 25 degrees AoA at 9 G regardless of speed. Even at slow speed , 9G turn instantly mean AoA limited down to 15 degrees , while at the same time Su-27 can go up to 26 degrees

 

Do you even realize what it is you're saying?? It matters squat what the AoA limit is at 9 G's because then you're already pulling the max load factor!

 

Much slower than F-16 which already slower than F-35 at dogfight speed , and F-35 also has a massive yaw rate

 

Much slower? Again you're guessing wildly based on nothing.

 

Also I doubt the F-35 accelerates much faster than a GE powered F-16C with a drag index of 50, it's T/W ratio is over 1.2.

 

I dont see how F-14 is a giant airfoil , the 2 engines are obvious no airfoil shape there, neither is the nose , So that left you with the middle section that looks kinda flat but then F-35has a massive flat area too. Then are age old questions regarding Vortex generators, how much CL will they improve?, then negative stability play a role too, both aircraft have massive tail but one counter lift while the other add up to it.

 

If you don't see it then open your eyes. The entire fuselage is shaped like an airfoil, i.e. flat bottom and curved top tapering to a fine point at the back, the nose of the aircraft playes into that shape as well.

 

In essense it's a flying wing with two engines strapped to the bottom of it.

 

 

 

Do they produce lift or not ? yes , regardless of looking boxy

 

Pretty much any shape can produce lift, the issue is wether it does so efficiently, in short there's a reason wings are airfoil shaped and not box shaped in profile.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Hummingbird

[mvsgas]

ikMmWlPZm-k

[garrya]

Small part??? The F-16 alone produces around 40% of its lift from it's fuselage!

I mean physically only a small part of F-16 fuselage shaped like airfoil , the rest is like a tube

 

and then why exactly do you later ask me to provide the Clmax when you've already got an EM chart??? You're contradicting yourself round every corner.

because with EM chart i can measure CL but i dont know the AoA where aircraft achieve that CL value

and we dont have either EM graph or CL graph for F-35 which make estimation even more vague

 

 

The Mirage 2000 has about the same WL as the EF, as well as an AoA limiter, and it is capable of matching the Su-27 in ITR, taken straight from the EM charts. So what does that tell you?

Not really , Mirage only have similar ITR with Su-27 if they both carry 50% of internal fuel. However much like Typhoon vs F-35 comparision , Su-27 can carry alot more fuel than Mirage ,it wouldnt be much exaggeration to say a Su-27 with 50% internal fuel can fly as long as a Mirage with 100% internal fuel load.

If you use the same percentage of fuel for both aircraft then practically speaking Mirage will stay on the air for half as long ,which i find very unfair ,if the situation was revert , it would be like using a Su-27 or F-35 with 25% internal fuel then compare them with Typhoon , mirage with 100% internal fuel

 

 

No they are clearly vortices generated by the wing gloves which act just like LERXs, and it's also descirbed in detail.

 

From a NASA Flow Visualization Study of the F-14:

"The F-14 model was investigated to determine the vortex flow field development, vortex path, and vortex breakdown characteristics as a function of angle of attack and sideslip. Vortex flows were found to develop on the highly swept glove and on the upper surface of the forebody."

 

 

 

As well as others:

 

There was a NASA study regarding vortex flow for F-15 too ( i posted it here before )

Nevertheless , i dont think F-35 vortex is that thin compare to F-16

 

 

 

 

 

How do you know that? Do you have a CLmax figure for a higher AoA than 24 deg?

 

You claimed yourself that the F-16 didn't reach it's CLmax until an AoA of ~35, and yet the Su-27 is supposed to reach its own at 24 deg? I don't buy it.

F-16 single tail have problem with high AoA at high G ,AFAIK Su-27 doesnt have the same problem. So logically the only reason to lock its AoA at 24 degrees is because going any further is not beneficial or risk break the airframe ( which is unlikely )

 

 

Thrust?? No the AoA limit, and at mach 0.5 it's limited to 24 deg.

Sorry that a typo , i was supposed to say " thus " but mis typed it to " thrust"

 

 

Why on earth would I want to put up CL figures when I have EM charts?

You're babbling now.

Because

1) EM dont tell you at what AoA the aircraft make the turn ( so it not possible to conclude which styles of body lift is better )

2) With CL value , you can calculate exact ITR at slightly different fuel load or weapon load while EM will only give performer metric at some fixed configuration

 

 

Do you even realize what it is you're saying?? It matters squat what the AoA limit is at 9 G's because then you're already pulling the max load factor

Well no , but potentially , higher CL mean higher G load you can achieve , and that mean alot when you want to over G the aircraft and what not

 

Much slower? Again you're guessing wildly based on nothing.

 

Also I doubt the F-35 accelerates much faster than a GE powered F-16C with a drag index of 50, it's T/W ratio is over 1.2

well , i dont guess , that what the pilot said , F-35 can accelerate in straight line as fast as an F-16 that unloaded . Of course only at subsonic speed.

In X-31 test , F-15 , F-16 also shown much better vertical performance compared to F-14D

 

If you don't see it then open your eyes. The entire fuselage is shaped like an airfoil, i.e. flat bottom and curved top tapering to a fine point at the back, the nose of the aircraft playes into that shape as well.

 

In essense it's a flying wing with two engines strapped to the bottom of it.

 

Same can be said about F-35 body when looks at from behind. Kinda like a thick airfoil with an engine in middle

And obviously it has lift from the tail fin as well while F-14 doesn't

 

 

Pretty much any shape can produce lift, the issue is whether it does so efficiently, in short there's a reason wings are airfoil shaped and not box shaped in profile.

Because wing need to be able to provide lift at 0 AoA , but it very unlikely that you would turn at 0 AoA though

[mvsgas]

Himmingbird, Garrya;

We get men, guys disagree. But this argument has been going on on several different threads for what, over a year? You guys keep saying the same thing over and over. Let it go, please.

 

So about the F-35;

wDKN7cpM8tA

[mvsgas]

[Boagrius]

DIRCM is already reality, all that potential F-35 opponents need to do is have funding available to get equipped with it. Lasers that can shoot down missiles and other planes are still somewhere in the unknown future, although the technology to make them reality has already been proven in practice to my knowledge. It's just a matter of time to mature the technology and then build an operational system.

 

While waiting for the laser you need to be prepared to get into gun fights with enemy stealth fighters. I think it's likely that there's going to be a relevant stealth fighter opponent operational before a proper laser weapon gets operational on F-35.

 

Yes DIRCM systems are nothing new as a technology, but it will be a long time before they could be considered commonplace among the F35's potential opponents (PAK FA is the only one to have it "off the shelf" AFAIK) and longer still before they could render something like AIM9X or SACM obsolete. PAK FA, for example, is still FAR from being the mainstay of the VVS (if ever), with the Russians likely to be relying heavily on DIRCM-less Flanker and Fulcrum derivatives for quite some time to come. The PLAAF are no further along in this arena.

 

I'd add that there is a big difference between today's practice of fitting a DIRCM system to a transport or strike aircraft, where the IR threat is overwhelmingly going to be coming from below (eg. for use against more primitive IR SAMs/MANPADs) and using one as a countermeasure against WVR missile launches from a violently maneuvering platform. For the latter you really need a high quality MAWS capable of directing the DIRCM beam onto the incoming AAM. As it stands, EODAS on the F35 is almost certainly the most capable known system for this task.

 

True directed energy weapons are still even further down the track. To my knowledge the technology has yet to be miniaturized to the degree necessary for practical implementation on a tactical fighter.

 

In the intervening period there are other emerging technologies that could also have transformational effects. For example, the use of networked (perhaps supercruising) UCAVs as weapons delivery platforms via a manned "mothership" (F35) springs to mind. None of this makes widespread BFM gunfights a likely event in the next 30 odd years though...(!?)

Edited November 20, 2016 by Boagrius

[Hummingbird]

Himmingbird, Garrya;

We get men, guys disagree. But this argument has been going on on several different threads for what, over a year? You guys keep saying the same thing over and over. Let it go, please.

 

You're so right, and I'm going to do just that, I've found it's pointless to continue anyway.

[Hummingbird]

Yes DIRCM systems are nothing new as a technology, but it will be a long time before they could be considered commonplace among the F35's potential opponents (PAK FA is the only one to have it "off the shelf" AFAIK) and longer still before they could render something like AIM9X or SACM obsolete. PAK FA, for example, is still FAR from being the mainstay of the VVS (if ever), with the Russians likely to be relying heavily on DIRCM-less Flanker and Fulcrum derivatives for quite some time to come. The PLAAF are no further along in this arena.

 

I'd add that there is a big difference between today's practice of fitting a DIRCM system to a transport or strike aircraft, where the IR threat is overwhelmingly going to be coming from below (eg. for use against more primitive IR SAMs/MANPADs) and using one as a countermeasure against WVR missile launches from a violently maneuvering platform. For the latter you really need a high quality MAWS capable of directing the DIRCM beam onto the incoming AAM. As it stands, EODAS on the F35 is almost certainly the most capable known system for this task.

 

True directed energy weapons are still even further down the track. To my knowledge the technology has yet to be miniaturized to the degree necessary for practical implementation on a tactical fighter.

 

In the intervening period there are other emerging technologies that could also have transformational effects. For example, the use of networked (perhaps supercruising) UCAVs as weapons delivery platforms via a manned "mothership" (F35) springs to mind. None of this makes widespread BFM gunfights a likely event in the next 30 odd years though...(!?)

 

Considering how fast technology is progressing atm I am not at all confident in the idea that within the next 10-15 years there's no chance of new countermeasure technologies appearing that are capable of reliably defeating/spoofing any form of IR or radar guided missile, and to which the only answer is "dumb" weapons.

 

I keep bringing this up because it is infact something which is on the minds of military planners as well, believe it or not. It is afterall their job to stay prepared and think ahead of the game - most people wouldn't believe the things they have plans set up against, some of it would sound like hollywood science fiction in most peoples ears.

[Boagrius]

Considering how fast technology is progressing atm I am not at all confident in the idea that within the next 10-15 years there's no chance of new countermeasure technologies appearing that are capable of reliably defeating/spoofing any form of IR or radar guided missile, and to which the only answer is "dumb" weapons.

 

Duly noted. Again, meaningless to the rest of us without evidence indicating how and when this is likely to occur though (if ever).

 

I keep bringing this up because it is infact something which is on the minds of military planners as well, believe it or not. It is afterall their job to stay prepared and think ahead of the game - most people wouldn't believe the things they have plans set up against, some of it would sound like hollywood science fiction in most peoples ears.

 

In the next 10-15 years!? Again, evidence please. Militaries around the world are still investing well into the future with large stockpiles of guided air to air and surface to air missiles - doesn't really fit with your narrative does it...

 

Meteor, AIM120D, Verba, R37, Python, Astra, R77M, SACM, MSDM, K74M2, PL15, CAMM/CAMM-ER, AAM4B/5, S400/500, upgraded Patriot, MEADS, Buk M3, NASAMs/AMRAAM-ER, Pantsir, Sosna, SM6, HQ9, ESSM Blk II, Aster... the list goes on and on (and on). They're all slated to be around and heavily invested in for quite some time to come (cref decades) for use against tactical fighters with comparatively little investment in alternative (eg. "dumb) weapon systems... Hell they're even going as far as to put guidance systems on the dumb weapons!!

 

 

None of this provides any tangible indication whatsoever that guided missiles are approaching obsolescence against tactical fighter aircraft in the foreseeable future or that this is a belief held by any force planners of note.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Boagrius

[probad]

you guys ought to be packing katanas cuz guns jam tbh

[Boagrius]

Nah katanas might snap - better stick with bare fists! :P

[garrya]

Himmingbird, Garrya;

We get men, guys disagree. But this argument has been going on on several different threads for what, over a year? You guys keep saying the same thing over and over. Let it go, please.

 

You are right , sorry for ruining the thread

Edited November 21, 2016 by garrya

[mvsgas]

You're so right, and I'm going to do just that, I've found it's pointless to continue anyway.

 

You are right , sorry for ruining the thread

 

Thank you both.

garrya, you did not ruin the thread, it's all good :thumbup:

 

Here is something to talk about, remember how GE/RR was working on an alternate engine for the F-35, good or bad that it got canceled?

 

I thought it was a good choice in terms of price and logistics. It is cheaper to develop one engine, specially the engine that is further along in testing. Logistically, it also makes since, the USN and USAF using the same engine and many part in common with the USMC versions. So if an USAF aircraft need parts, he can get it from a USN/USMC facility. Also, many more technicians would be familiar with repair, so no need to send personnel across areas if it can be fix by local mechanics.

 

I thought it was bad because if a major fault is found on the engine, it would ground the entire fleet. Also, I believe the F-14/15/16 benefited from having multiple engine.

 

google doc link

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. YOUNG UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.... March 2008

Edited November 21, 2016 by mvsgas

[mvsgas]

wJEhIso7ics

 

 

N7Gix8x1LI0

[Boagrius]

 

Here is something to talk about, remember how GE/RR was working on an alternate engine for the F-35, good or bad that it got canceled?...

 

I thought it was bad because if a major fault is found on the engine, it would ground the entire fleet. Also, I believe the F-14/15/16 benefited from having multiple engine.

 

It's a good question, although I don't have an answer. That said the single source engine dynamic might not last forever - last year GE were making some serious noise with their work on variable bypass propulsion systems:

 

http://aviationweek.com/defense/ge-details-sixth-generation-adaptive-fighter-engine-plan

 

I'd say there is a decent chance that F35's could be re-engined in the post 2025 timeframe if this new technology turns out to be as good as it sounds.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

AFAIK the F-35 is suppose to get a new GE adaptive cycle engine in mid-2020.

 

Such engine would provide 10% more thrust and 30% more fuel saving.

[Pilotasso]

Wait a minute...

Wasn't GE developing an engine with rolls royce that got canceled already?

[Boagrius]

Wait a minute...

Wasn't GE developing an engine with rolls royce that got canceled already?

 

I think you're referring to the F136 here and yes it did get canned. We're talking about the work they've been doing under the ADVENT and AETD programs. Very good possibility that it could yield an alternate (and superior) propulsion system to the F135 in ~10 years time.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Boagrius

[Hummingbird]

Duly noted. Again, meaningless to the rest of us without evidence indicating how and when this is likely to occur though (if ever).

 

 

 

In the next 10-15 years!? Again, evidence please. Militaries around the world are still investing well into the future with large stockpiles of guided air to air and surface to air missiles - doesn't really fit with your narrative does it...

 

Meteor, AIM120D, Verba, R37, Python, Astra, R77M, SACM, MSDM, K74M2, PL15, CAMM/CAMM-ER, AAM4B/5, S400/500, upgraded Patriot, MEADS, Buk M3, NASAMs/AMRAAM-ER, Pantsir, Sosna, SM6, HQ9, ESSM Blk II, Aster... the list goes on and on (and on). They're all slated to be around and heavily invested in for quite some time to come (cref decades) for use against tactical fighters with comparatively little investment in alternative (eg. "dumb) weapon systems... Hell they're even going as far as to put guidance systems on the dumb weapons!!

 

 

None of this provides any tangible indication whatsoever that guided missiles are approaching obsolescence against tactical fighter aircraft in the foreseeable future or that this is a belief held by any force planners of note.

 

Being a military planner means being prepared for both scenarios, designers also have to think ahead (which is the reason fighters keep being designed with internally integrated guns and not just the ability to carry external gunpods), so I really can't follow why you would ridicule the other possibility.

 

Halting all missile production & R&D would be just as grave a mistake as not preparing for the possibility that DIRCMs and like will become commonplace amongst the more advanced foes sooner rather than later.

[SkateZilla]

The F-14 Tennis Court Generates more lift than most small fighters..

[Boagrius]

Being a military planner means being prepared for both scenarios, designers also have to think ahead (which is the reason fighters keep being designed with internally integrated guns and not just the ability to carry external gunpods), so I really can't follow why you would ridicule the other possibility.

 

Yes and infantrymen tend to carry combat knives with them - it doesn't mean anyone is preparing for bullets to stop working any time soon!?

 

Integrated guns have a variety of uses aside from BFM air combat, at relatively little cost - cheap,

, gunning down the occasional opponent that has spent all their energy defending BVR/pre merge missiles, finishing off damaged aircraft, dispensing of lower value/capability targets (eg UAVs) and so on. They are not built in because anyone of note is seriously entertaining the idea that BFM gunfights will be a particularly important aspect of the air to air warfare domain going forward.

 

You'll also note that the overwhelming trend in new design fighter aircraft is to carry a token amount of gun ammunition - totally inadequate for providing any kind of persistence in the air warfare domain and fundamentally NOT indicative of force planners anticipating a scenario where AAMs are rendered so impotent.

 

Halting all missile production & R&D would be just as grave a mistake as not preparing for the possibility that DIRCMs and like will become commonplace amongst the more advanced foes sooner rather than later.

 

Sure, but that "preparation" does not mean defaulting to gun based BFM combat of all things. In reality it's more likely to (for example) trigger a shift to multimodal forms of missile guidance (eg. the Israeli Stunner missile), DIRCM hardening and/or shifts to broader/multispectral IR seekerheads (ref what the Russians have done with Verba) and more emphasis placed on co-operative engagement techniques via data sharing over jam resistant datalinks like MADL. For the umpteenth time, you've provided precisely zero evidence to suggest that this is a likely scenario worth seriously planning for in any theatre or any timeframe whatsoever.

 

If it's all the same to you, the conversation about future propulsion systems seems much more interesting.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Boagrius