The F-35 Thread

[marcos]

Thanks for that info Maior, geez this thing can carry 12 of those 360 missiles from the photo. But how many CUDA's can the F-22 carry then?

Either 12 or 14, depending on whether the Cuda will fit in the AIM-9 bays width-wise.

[Invader ZIM]

Thanks for that marcos, certainly allows for design flexibility, noticed the surprising lack of a warhead, it's an entirely kinetic kill vehicle.

[WynnTTr]

No fighter can defeat a HOBS missile technically, it doesn't matter how much thrust vectoring or sustained g they have. You don't egress out of a furball, there's no way to do so without taking a missile up the tailpipe. You might blow through it (as in fly straight through it without turning and thus slowing down) and launch things as you do so, but even that is a poor idea.

 

Furballs are crap-shoots, and maneuverability won't save you.

 

But at least with DAS, the F-35 has the SA advantage in a furball, where the other guys might end up shooting each other.

 

Not likely - that is, 'everyone' has HOBS now, but DAS is a bit of another deal. They might have something like it, but not quite that for a while.

 

Overestimating can also be bad.

 

Planes tend to excel at what they're designed for. The F-35 wasn't designed for overwhelming air to air capability, but against certain aircraft that is exactly what it will have. There's nothing modest about its capabilities.

You're right - you don't egress from a furball - you get the hell out of there as fast as you can, which in the F-35 isn't as fast as you'd want it apparently.

 

Which would you rather in a battle - overestimate the enemy or underestimate him. Don't go on about what you really want is exact intel cos we both know that that doesn't always happen if at all.

 

And how do you know that the Chinese haven't already cracked DAS? If we know about it and what it can do I'm willing to bet that the Chinese military are way beyond what we know.

 

Sure the F-35 is better than any 4th or 4.5 generation but consider it's performance against the PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, or even the SU-30MKI? You know aircraft that the F-35 will most likely fight against in the next few decades.

 

We don't have data on them either but can you honestly say that the F-35 is superior to them? If anything it sounds like its performance is barely scraping past current gen fighters let alone for it to be pitted against those fifth gen fighters.

 

But again, it's all theory at this point. Roll it out and we'll actually see how it performs.

[swift]

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/gillard-green-lights-f-35-purchase

 

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has confirmed that Australia will go ahead with purchasing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from the US, despite the jets being grounded by the Pentagon due to a cracked engine blade.

 

The US military on Saturday suspended all flights operated by the fleet of 51 jets to investigate the turbine blade crack.

 

A statement issued by the Pentagon said that “it is too early to know the fleet-wide impact of the recent finding."

 

The statement added that the F-35 Joint Program Office is working closely with Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed Martin at all F-35 locations to ensure the integrity of the engine and to return the fleet safely to flight as soon as possible.

 

PM Gillard told reporters on the weekend that Australia would continue with the purchase of the first two JSFs, which have already been paid for.

 

''We'll continue to monitor and be in discussions about issues that have arisen and need to be addressed in the performance of the joint strike fighter,'' Gillard said.

 

Gillard went on to say that her government would not allow a gap to arise in the nation's air warfare capabilities.

[marcos]

No fighter can defeat a HOBS missile technically, it doesn't matter how much thrust vectoring or sustained g they have. You don't egress out of a furball, there's no way to do so without taking a missile up the tailpipe. You might blow through it (as in fly straight through it without turning and thus slowing down) and launch things as you do so, but even that is a poor idea.

HOBS and LOAL provides a huge advantage, but the AIM-9X-2 is not a 100% missile.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aim-9x-block-ii-performing-better-than-expected-381569/

 

Forward shots are probably more likely to succeed than rearward ones.

 

It's also possible to have an evenly matched WVR confrontation without it becoming a furball with smaller numbers. I believe this is why they still design these fighters with manoeuvrability in mind.

[Maior]

You're right - you don't egress from a furball - you get the hell out of there as fast as you can, which in the F-35 isn't as fast as you'd want it apparently.

 

Which would you rather in a battle - overestimate the enemy or underestimate him. Don't go on about what you really want is exact intel cos we both know that that doesn't always happen if at all.

 

And how do you know that the Chinese haven't already cracked DAS? If we know about it and what it can do I'm willing to bet that the Chinese military are way beyond what we know.

 

Sure the F-35 is better than any 4th or 4.5 generation but consider it's performance against the PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, or even the SU-30MKI? You know aircraft that the F-35 will most likely fight against in the next few decades.

 

We don't have data on them either but can you honestly say that the F-35 is superior to them? If anything it sounds like its performance is barely scraping past current gen fighters let alone for it to be pitted against those fifth gen fighters.

 

But again, it's all theory at this point. Roll it out and we'll actually see how it performs.

 

 

Really, Mach 1.2 supercruise is not fast enough? What legacy fighter can achieve supercruise? NONE. If you forced them on AB you're already gaining an advantage since they'll be burning their precious fuel. Plus, the ability to have all the weapons internally really sleeks the design reducing drag. Couple that with their very powerful engine and you'll have an acceleration rate faster than any of the legacy opponents and all but the PAK-FA. Of those 4+/5th gen airframes you mentioned, only the PAK-FA has proven you can achieve supercruise.

 

Plus, the new CUDA missile will provide a leap in WVR and BVR capabilities and it's multi seeker warhead is good for many an occasion.

 

It's not all theory. Again, 9.9 G instant turns, 70º AoA Mach 1.2 supercruise... All proven to be achieved. Sure there are aircraft who do more than this but you cannot call this bird slow on any account.

[GGTharos]

You're right - you don't egress from a furball - you get the hell out of there as fast as you can, which in the F-35 isn't as fast as you'd want it apparently.

 

Are you sure that you know what a furball IS? Because that statement makes it sound like yo do not.

 

We don't have data on them either but can you honestly say that the F-35 is superior to them? If anything it sounds like its performance is barely scraping past current gen fighters let alone for it to be pitted against those fifth gen fighters.

 

Can you honestly say that it isn't?

[GGTharos]

HOBS and LOAL provides a huge advantage, but the AIM-9X-2 is not a 100% missile.

 

There is no 100% missile, and it doesn't matter.

 

It's also possible to have an evenly matched WVR confrontation without it becoming a furball with smaller numbers. I believe this is why they still design these fighters with manoeuvrability in mind.

 

That's why you kill things BVR so it isn't fair. ;)

[marcos]

There is no 100% missile, and it doesn't matter.

Maybe the missile will have a better chance if it doesn't have to do a backwards somersault before heading for the enemy aircraft.

 

That's why you kill things BVR so it isn't fair. ;)

And suppose you kill some BVR such that it ends up fair WVR. Suppose being able to detect a rocket at >800 miles with EO also makes it possible to detect stealth aircraft at >100 miles. Think about how far away 800 miles is. Many countries aren't even that wide or long.

[GGTharos]

Why does it need to? Why is this scenario forced upon it? What did you make up now?

 

Maybe the missile will have a better chance if it doesn't have to do a backwards somersault before heading for the enemy aircraft.

 

And suppose you kill some BVR such that it ends up fair WVR.

No, I won't. There's no reason to suppose such a thing, and even if it happened, there's usually no reason to push WVR. There's a reason why air forces develop skate/banzai tactical choice, along with AMR's and other qualifications for buying merges. But to make those decisions, you need situational awareness.

 

Suppose being able to detect a rocket at >800 miles with EO also makes it possible to detect stealth aircraft at >100 miles.

I won't suppose that, because I don't need to; it's not going to happen. There's a reason why the primary fighter sensor is still the radar. Edited February 25, 2013 by GGTharos

[marcos]

Why does it need to? Why is this scenario forced upon it? What did you make up now?

Everyone has been making like turning performance for the F-35 isn't an issue because HOBS LOAL missiles can pull off any kind of wanker shot, but the truth is that they're not infallible and are more likely to get a kill from a traditional forwards shot.

 

No, I won't. There's no reason to suppose such a thing,

There's no reason to suppose that an engine blade might crack either but that's what you get for dealing with Pratts.

 

I won't suppose that, because I don't need to; it's not going to happen. There's a reason why the primary fighter sensor is still the radar.

There's a reason why the primary fighter sensor has been the radar and there are strong reasons as to why that may change. The most revolutionary aspect of the F-35 is not its stealth or its radar.

[GGTharos]

Everyone has been making like turning performance for the F-35 isn't an issue because HOBS LOAL missiles can pull off any kind of wanker shot, but the truth is that they're not infallible and are more likely to get a kill from a traditional forwards shot.

 

The truth is that they reduce the need for an aircraft to get stuck in a turning fight.

 

There's no reason to suppose that an engine blade might crack either but that's what you get for dealing with Pratts.

That's a pretty irrelevant statement.

 

There's a reason why the primary fighter sensor has been the radar and there are strong reasons as to why that may change. The most revolutionary aspect of the F-35 is not its stealth or its radar.

The primary sensor is still, and will be, the radar. This is why there is money being poured into continued development of that particular sensor on all fighter platforms, and a lack of will to replace it with the smaller, lighter, longer-ranged, magical raptor-killing IRST ;)

[marcos]

The truth is that they reduce the need for an aircraft to get stuck in a turning fight.

Reduce yes, eliminate no. You have a limited number of missiles so it's a risky call.

 

That's a pretty irrelevant statement.

Not really.

 

The primary sensor is still, and will be, the radar. This is why there is money being poured into continued development of that particular sensor on all fighter platforms.

And what of EODAS and sensor fusion?

[GGTharos]

Reduce yes, eliminate no. You have a limited number of missiles so it's a risky call.

 

Yes, and the uselessness of this capability is once more exactly why this capability was developed.

 

Not really.

 

Yes, really. It has nothing to do with furballs, regardless of how much you want to draw parallels between PW and furballs.

 

And what of EODAS and sensor fusion?

 

Short range SA and increase of SA via sensor fusion.

[Pyroflash]

The jets you are flying against are smaller, faster, and more maneuverable. Just like the enemy MiGs.

 

DEAL WITH IT.

 

(Yes, yes, I did just go there.) :D

[marcos]

Yes, and the uselessness of this capability is once more exactly why this capability was developed.

But don't think it's an end-all solution. If you have one missile left, would you risk flinging it 135 degrees?

 

Yes, really. It has nothing to do with furballs, regardless of how much you want to draw parallels between PW and furballs.

Not really. You can't just write off eventualities because they don't fit your game plan.

 

Short range SA and increase of SA via sensor fusion.

Short-range being a rocket at >1300km and cannon fire at tens of miles.

[Pyroflash]

But don't think it's an end-all solution. If you have one missile left, would you risk flinging it 135 degrees?

Yes, 45 degrees aspect? Sounds like a guns kill in the making. I would fire that missile the first chance I got.

 

Not really. You can't just write off eventualities because they don't fit your game plan.

Eventualities? It was a one off. Virtually the same core has been used problem free in the F-22A for a number of years now with no issues. They are pretty efficient, reliable, and stable engines. The DoD simply refuses to take any chances with it in the development. That's all this is.

 

Short-range being a rocket at >1300km and cannon fire at tens of miles.

Depends on what rocket? If you are talking about a space or ICBM launch, then I will agree. However, at this point you can almost spot it visually. Cannon fire? Okay, I can see it working at tens of miles, but so can modern TGPs. RADAR however, can see aircraft at hundreds of miles. AESA also has bunches of clever tricks to use, so don't so easily discount it. IRST is not a sensor god mode, and has far more flaws than I think you realize.

[GGTharos]

But don't think it's an end-all solution. If you have one missile left, would you risk flinging it 135 degrees?

 

Yes. While busting right through. The other guy might want to save his life and fight the missile, and I'll be outta there.

 

Not really. You can't just write off eventualities because they don't fit your game plan.

 

Yes really. I really can write-off certain eventualities, or more to the point, plan for a certain amount of losses due to such eventualities. The entire point behind the F-35 is to not fight a fight of attrition. Once you get down to furballs, it's all one big crap-shoot.

 

Short-range being a rocket at >1300km and cannon fire at tens of miles.

 

And all of those look like fighters detected at long range, too!

[marcos]

Biefing by Pratt & Whitney on engine crack and fix

 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/Blade-Failure-SECNAV-Briefing-2008.pdf

[marcos]

Yes. While busting right through. The other guy might want to save his life and fight the missile, and I'll be outta there.

So you turn your back and run but what's this, you have a hypersonic MRAAM after you.

 

Yes really. I really can write-off certain eventualities, or more to the point, plan for a certain amount of losses due to such eventualities. The entire point behind the F-35 is to not fight a fight of attrition. Once you get down to furballs, it's all one big crap-shoot.

That's just a hypothetical term you've seized upon to evade the fact that WVR could end up at even odds.

 

And all of those look like fighters detected at long range, too!

1300km is a long way and whilst I realise that a fighter won't be as easy to detect as a space rocket, the difference in IR absorption, scattering and non-atmosphere-related R^2 attenuation between 1300km and 160km is significant (spelt 'massive').

Edited February 25, 2013 by marcos

[GGTharos]

So you turn your back and run but what's this, you have a hypersonic MRAAM after you.

 

Except I don't. Because the other guy is stuck in his furball.

 

That's just a hypothetical term you've seized upon to evade the fact that WVR could end up at even odds.

 

That's a very non-hypothetical term that is dealt with by air forces all around the world. No one likes furballs, and no one likes even odds in WVR, and at the very least I know very well that the USAF trains to not buy merges if the odds aren't acceptable with respect to their mission.

 

1300km is a long way and whilst I realise that a fighter won't be as easy to detect as a space rocket, the difference in IR absorption, scattering and non-atmosphere-related R^2 attenuation between 1300km and 160km is significant (spelt 'massive').

 

So is the difference between a fighter and rocket IR signature.

Edited February 25, 2013 by GGTharos

[Maior]

So you turn your back and run but what's this, you have a hypersonic MRAAM after you.

 

Why do you assume that a 5th generation fighter cannot do what an F-15 can? Why were no downed F-15s vs MiG-29s and other more potent close range aircraft? Because, the F-15 is excellent at keeping it's energy as it's soaring through you. By the time you finished dodging a missile (if you can) he's either already far away or, he's already attacking again.

Now, the F-35 has Supercruise which means that without a screaming heat signature, it can engage and disengage at a superior speed meaning, more energy making such disengagement even faster to pull. VLO basically means that your sensors (not just radar) will have a much smaller radius of efficiency.

 

Here's two articles for you to understand better:

http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_021.pdf

http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_022.pdf

 

So basically, you have a Mach 1.2 object without a significant heat signature (IRST magic is nullified), that requires you to be much closer to it in order to detect it, that lobs a couple of missiles, and by the time you realise what's coming at you, he's given half a turn and disengaged leaving you to fend of the missile and forcing you to accelerate to AB if you want to have a chance pursuing it.

 

The new missile being developed is another advantage since when they go pitbull, they can have Heat seeking warhead and there goes any warning other than visual ID.

 

That's just a hypothetical term you've seized upon to evade the fact that WVR could end up at even odds.

No doubt VLO advantages are not as easily exploited when WVR happens but you're always assuming that they'll be at such a huge disadvantage. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that if an F-35 or F-22 pilot is caught WVR they will go "bummer..." and do nothing at all. Again, Since the aircraft keep their energy better due to the streamlined design (no external stores), massive trust from engines and probably cruising supersonically, they'll always have an advantage in energy during a dogfight vs legacy fighters.

Just like an F-15 has nowadays only with a couple of hundred knots extra. Higher energy means higher altitude achieved which in turn means your missiles will have less energy than the F-35s and the F-35 will have always have a deadlier envelope. So, less lethal radius.

And again, notching and other similar manoeuvres works for VLO platforms as well. Probably, it works even better for them.

 

1300km is a long way and whilst I realise that a fighter won't be as easy to detect as a space rocket, the difference in IR absorption, scattering and non-atmosphere-related R^2 attenuation between 1300km and 160km is significant (spelt 'massive').

The scattering in the atmosphere works only for blue light (Rayleigh scattering) and Rockets work by an explosive chemical reaction. That reaction achieves much higher temperatures and, like our friend Boltzman discovered, energy varies to the fourth power of temperature (T^4)!

So, an aircraft without AB on, produces less energy and since the intensity of the signal decreases by R^2, you're looking at a huge decrease in visibility. As such, it will be detected at a much lower range than a rocket.

Now I have to mention the aspect of the said rocket. while an aircraft is probably moving towards you hiding it's heat signature with it's body, a Rocket can be picked up while it's climbing where there is energy being sent directly towards your sensor so, You need to take into account this factor as well which further reduces detection range.

 

This is valid for all aircraft. there's a field however that only applies to VLO.

VLO does mean reduced RADAR signature alone. Further focus is used on IR signature reduction (like liquid hydrogen cooling of the escape gases).

This will further reduce the IRST range another bit.

 

RADAR is and will be the main sensor for the foreseeable future since the other sensors are more limited in width, and range. Plus, AESAs can vary the frequency of the signal thousands of times a second and can operate at very low energies making it possible to lock an aircraft without it's pilot ever knowing he has been locked.

 

You need to do further research on these subjects. And this above test is based on technology we know nowadays. The most reliable way to detect VLO, is still with RADAR. That's why the Su-35 carries two L-band radars which work better vs VLO (but they're not perfect).

 

 

Look, I say it again, you cannot pick on this aircraft by it's performance since you'll find no faults in it. More SA, more energy, more everything comparing to legacy fighters.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Maior

[tflash]

I wasn't so sure F-35 supercruise is really an F-35 forte. I guess it will fly very easily and accellerate well in the high subsonic-transonic regime, but mention supercruise as one of its qualities through which it would gain an A2A advantage seems over the top. I guess a Typhoon would do better in that regard, no? Sometimes it seems like we inflate the F-35 into being an F-22.

[marcos]

Why do you assume that a 5th generation fighter cannot do what an F-15 can? Why were no downed F-15s vs MiG-29s and other more potent close range aircraft?

For the same reason that Harrier FSR2s went 23:0 against Mirages in the Falklands. The other aircraft were flown by incompetent asshats.

 

The scattering in the atmosphere works only for blue light (Rayleigh scattering) and Rockets work by an explosive chemical reaction. That reaction achieves much higher temperatures and, like our friend Boltzman discovered, energy varies to the fourth power of temperature (T^4)!

Umm no. Absorption and scattering also affects IR.

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/IR_prop/IR_prop.htm

 

http://what-when-how.com/remote-sensing-from-air-and-space/atmospheric-absorption-scattering-and-turbulence-visible-imagery-remote-sensing/

 

T^4 sound like a big term until you apply the e^(-BR) term for 800 miles(800*1600m) and 100 miles with the values given in the first link for B (e.g. 1*10^-4 per m).

 

Your other assertions about AESA against modern L-Band and ESM are also flawed. AESA may prevent the other aircraft getting a fix, but it'll still detect that there's something there. Typhoon could detect when Raptors locked them BVR. Your portrayal of AESA as a passive-like system is false.

 

Your assertion that radar will remain the prime sensing element is unfounded and serves only to further your argument. With more and more aircraft attempting to deceive radar, that will only expedite the move to more reliable systems which have already began. Radar is already poor for VLO because even when you are in range, the coverage is so narrow it's unhelpful, especially compared to 360deg EO systems or wide angle IRST.

Edited February 25, 2013 by marcos

[Pyroflash]

For the same reason that Harrier FSR2s went 23:0 against Mirages in the Falklands. The other aircraft were flown by incompetent asshats.

 

No, the F-15C really is that much better than the MiG-29 (in BVR). Arguing that the MiG-29 can even hold a candle to the F-15C in BVR is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Although not the same argument, the F-35 should, at least, be able to beat most all 4th gen fighters in air combat. It might not be as good as the Tiffy or Raptor in some respects, but it doesn't have to be.

 

Your assertion that radar will remain the prime sensing element is unfounded and serves only to further your argument. With more and more aircraft attempting to deceive radar, that will only expedite the move to more reliable systems which have already began. Radar is already poor for VLO because even when you are in range, the coverage is so narrow it's unhelpful, especially compared to 360deg EO systems or wide angle IRST.

It depends, current work on GaN based core chips and MMICs will allow for almost a 16 fold increase in current radar power efficiency. This, for an AESA radar, is absolutely staggering since that allows for a near doubling of the effective range without a substantial decrease in resolution.

 

Your other assertions about AESA against modern L-Band and ESM are also flawed. AESA may prevent the other aircraft getting a fix, but it'll still detect that there's something there. Typhoon could detect when Raptors locked them BVR. Your portrayal of AESA as a passive-like system is false.

AESA is really a wholly different beast than a mechanically scanned array. A Tiffy detected an F-22A's RADAR. What mode was it in? Do you even know what kinds of modes that the AN/APG-77 can operate with? I don't, and I'm fairly certain that you don't either. Edited February 25, 2013 by Pyroflash