F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[average american]

Heres my understanding of US air stratgy for present and future warfare. Missiles Navy has 11000 alone that take out airdefense and communication sites and high priority targets, some of the Missiles with use EMP to take out electronics. The the Drones using antiradiations missiles to further degrade air defense sites. Same time countermeasures willl be used and then along this decoy drones. The the F22 will clean air space up to 500 kilometers from the target, the the USA with go in with the F35 and B1 with powered JDAMs from stand off of about 500 kilometers from the targets. The F35 will deliver the first of the rocket powered JDAMS to further degrade any defenses and the B1 with can carry 180 powered 250 lb Jdams or 80 500 lb Jdams includeing cluster bombs will elimate the target.
After that the B2 and B52 act as bomb trucks with glide JDAMS with ranges of about 50 miles or regulasr JDAMs delivering as many as 20000 in a sortie.

The USA was planning on war with much formidable enemies then we ended up faceing, orignally when all this technology was thought of we were planning on fighting a much superior USSR with more weapons then US forces. Its kind of like the USA planned to fight in the heavy weight division and ended up in fighting in the feathweight division.

The advantage of the F35B is that it will allow US allies to have the advantages of an aircraft carrier with out needing an aircraft carrier, with the F35 B any ship can be an aircraft carrier.

 

[vram]

Heres my understanding of US air stratgy for present and future warfare.
The advantage of the F35B is that it will allow US allies to have the advantages of an aircraft carrier with out needing an aircraft carrier, with the F35 B any ship can be an aircraft carrier.

Fair enough. The F-22 combined with the F35 will be a formidable force no matter who the enemy. But in relation to the critical questions here..

F35 and its variants are not only meant for the American strategies of war or even the same kind of enemies. From all the literature that I have till now read up on the F35 it will not serve as a very good multi-role Jet compared to the other upcoming competitors. The main advantage here I suspect will be its better stealth charecterstics as well better sensors and electronics that should have excellent pilot interfaces that will allow Just-In-Time mission deviations if the scenario required . The other legacy jets will be slower to respond. But the price tag for this capability just seems a bit too high for a marginal improvement in capability over the competitors.

 

[p2prada]

But the price tag for this capability just seems a bit too high for a marginal improvement in capability over the competitors.

The price tag issue is overstated.

Currently prototypes cost as much as a serial production EF-2000. Once the F-35s production line stabilizes costs will go down.

The current cost for Korean F-35s is said to be $10.8 Billion for 60 jets.
LiveLeak.com - South Korea Requests F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (comments)

That's $180 Million per aircraft including spares, maintenance and training. It could very well be similar to IAF's Rafale deal even though we are ordering twice the number for aircraft.

To top it off,
F-35A Cost Per Flying Hour Exceeds F-16 by 10%

USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer overseeing the F-35 program, told Dutch government officials that the cost per flying hour for the F-35A, which The Netherlands intends to buy, is $24,000, according to Capt. Natasha Waggoner, an Air Force spokeswoman. Bogdan provided the data to Dutch legislators, including a "side-by-side comparison of flying hour costs between the F-16 and the F-35," she says.

A 10% greater cost is a pretty decent figure in comparison to the capability boost that even exceeds MKI.

No, stealth isn't a "marginal" improvement over 4th gen aircraft.

 

[Armand2REP]

I forget where I posted that report, but it said F-35 was buggy as hell. It clearly isn't ready for prime time as they constantly degrade its capabilities to meet timelines. When it is finished it is twice the cost of Rafale with less capability. All you get is a marginal decrease in RCS, the same if Rafale underwent a stealth conversion.

 

[sayareakd]

The USA was planning on war with much formidable enemies then we ended up faceing, orignally when all this technology was thought of we were planning on fighting a much superior USSR with more weapons then US forces. Its kind of like the USA planned to fight in the heavy weight division and ended up in fighting in the feathweight division.

more like super featherweight enemy.

 

[average american]

The kill ratio of the F15 is 105 to 0, if it had cost 5 times a much would it have been worth it. Would a cheaper plane that only had a 50 / 50 kill ratio , how about 75/25 kill ratio been a better deal.

 

[sayareakd]

The kill ratio of the F15 is 105 to 0, if it had cost 5 times a much would it have been worth it. Would a cheaper plane that only had a 50 / 50 kill ratio , how about 75/25 kill ratio been a better deal.

they never meet any real airforce which was only half as capable as they were. Then this ratio would have been different.

 

[p2prada]

I forget where I posted that report, but it said F-35 was buggy as hell. It clearly isn't ready for prime time as they constantly degrade its capabilities to meet timelines.

F-35 is still under development.

When it is finished it is twice the cost of Rafale with less capability.

Explain this. F-35 will have a more capable radar and has far higher volume for avionics than Rafale will even have. So how will it be less capable?

Rafales were offered to Switzerland at $200Million apiece while the Korean order is at $180Million apiece. So what was that about twice the cost?

All you get is a marginal decrease in RCS, the same if Rafale underwent a stealth conversion.

No chance at all. Meaning Rafale will never undergo a stealth conversion and if it did it will have even lesser capability due to the decreased fuel and avionics bay space.

F-35 has two or three times the avionics space, two times the fuel and is a stealth aircraft compared to Rafale. It is so obvious which is better. Rafale may be a better dog fighter though.

 

[asianobserve]

Rafale may be a better dog fighter though.

As you said F-35 is still in development so it's too early to say which will be a better dogfighter. Just note that when the F-35 was being designed the Americans and allies already know the specs of all 4 and 4+ gen fighters in the market although I doubt the F-35 was designed by the Americans with the existing threats in mind.

I think the game changer in F-35 as far as WVR fights (dogfights) is its DAS that gives the pilot a 360 degree vision. Coupled with HOBS and LOAL missiles then extreme maneuvering might just have been relegated to airshows... Of course capabilities promised by F-35s DAs can only be fully exploited if LM and its subcontractor can solve the issues on its HMDs integration.

 

[p2prada]

As you said F-35 is still in development so it's too early to say which will be a better dogfighter. Just note that when the F-35 was being designed the Americans and allies already know the specs of all 4 and 4+ gen fighters in the market although I doubt the F-35 was designed by the Americans with the existing threats in mind.

It is confirmed that the F-35 won't be as good as Rafale with the recent specs degrade. The only advantage for the F-35 in this case is the internal weapons carriage which reduces drag. But if you rig a Rafale with the same weapons load as the F-35s internals, the Rafale will still be better as it has greater TWR.

I think the game changer in F-35 as far as WVR fights (dogfights) is its DAS that gives the pilot a 360 degree vision. Coupled with HOBS and LOAL missiles then extreme maneuvering might just have been relegated to airshows... Of course capabilities promised by F-35s DAs can only be fully exploited if LM and its subcontractor can solve the issues on its HMDs integration.

Look, I will say this again. The 360 degree capability is nothing spectacular.

Take the example of PAKFA. It has 360 degree capability and it also has extreme maneuverability. When the lock happens, the missile can head straight to the target. So, instead of forcing the missile to maneuver and waste fuel, the aircraft itself can turn 180 degrees to fire the missile. Even the time to target would be significantly lower.

The biggest criticism of TVC is that the fighter would have lost its energy and it would become an easy target. But there is a small catch here. When the pilot uses TVC, it will most probably be used to get a shot in, so while the aircraft has lost its agility, the enemy pilot will actually try to get away from the energy less fighter simply because there is a missile or two headed straight towards it. Meaning what will the enemy do when there is a high energy missile headed towards it, fired first from the energy less fighter? Will the pilot sacrifice himself to get a shot of his own in or will he try to escape?

Criticism of extreme maneuverability will go up in smoke in such a situation.

The purpose of the 360 degree capability on F-35 is to maintain situational awareness, the purpose of extreme maneuverability is to get the first shot in. Both complement each other.

Anyway Rafale does not yet have extreme maneuverability, but it can bring itself into a firing position faster than F-35 can.

 

[asianobserve]

Look, I will say this again. The 360 degree capability is nothing spectacular.

Take the example of PAKFA. It has 360 degree capability and it also has extreme maneuverability. When the lock happens, the missile can head straight to the target. So, instead of forcing the missile to maneuver and waste fuel, the aircraft itself can turn 180 degrees to fire the missile. Even the time to target would be significantly lower.

Why would you "turn" just to get a lock when all you need to do is "look"?

If the Russians are now adopting F-35 style DAS in PAKFA then it only validates the projections of the people at LM about the future of fighters.

 

[asianobserve]

On the issue of maneuvering in WVR combat (dogfights): Which would you prefer to do the maneuvering, an aircraft with excellent TVC truning capability but limited only to 9Gs (due to human limits) or a 50+G (and Mach 3+) capable missile also with TVCs? I'd chose the latter anytime.

Take a look at the typical engagement envelope of Phyton 4, one of the new generation of HOBS missiles:

And look at this demo of AIM 9x:


Do you think Russian TVC equipped jets can outrun those missiles? So I would put my faith on the first jet that can "look" and "lock" at the opponent.

 

[p2prada]

Why would you "turn" just to get a lock when all you need to do is "look"?

"Look" for the lock and "turn" to shoot.

If the Russians are now adopting F-35 style DAS in PAKFA then it only validates the projections of the people at LM about the future of fighters.

It is nice to have such a system in place. Small fighters won't have the size advantage or visual stealth advantage.

 

[asianobserve]

"Look" for the lock and "turn" to shoot.

Just observe the video I posted above on how the AIM 9x turns after it was fired from the F15, so quick. Besides, with these new generation of IR missiles you don't even need to have a "lock" to shoot the missile since the missiles can lock on the target after it is lunched. So I will disagree with you so vehemently on your insistence on the need of the jet to maneuver to have a good missile shoot in WVR combat. By the time the pilot points his nose on the enemy the enemy with DAS has already fired at him and the HOBS with LOAL missile is already heading straight at you, having just made a 180 degrees turn... KABOOOM!

 

[p2prada]

On the issue of maneuvering in WVR combat (dogfights): Which would you prefer to do the maneuvering, an aircraft with excellent TVC truning capability but limited only to 9Gs (due to human limits) or a 50+G (and Mach 3+) capable missile also with TVCs? I'd chose the latter anytime.

Take a look at the typical engagement envelope of Phyton 4, one of the new generation of HOBS missiles:

Think about this. Which of the targets is closer and more reachable?

The same scenario, what do you think the super maneuverable Flanker would have done. With a regular fighter, that is a predictable path. But with the MKI or Su-35 the aircraft simply had to turn a little bit to the left and the Hornet would have died much earlier.

There are 7 Python images, so using that as key let me explain where the Hornet would have been when it died. The first kill probability to take out the MKI is at the 4th Python image. The second kill probability is at the 7th image. But to take down the Hornet, the first kill probability is at the first Python image.

Meaning the Hornet would have died the same time as the Python released. Also the missile does not have enough turn radius for the missile to re-engage a MKI that stopped mid air resulting in an overshoot.

Do you think Russian TVC equipped jets can outrun those missiles? So I would put my faith on the first jet that can "look" and "lock" at the opponent.

Russian TVC cannot necessarily outrun a missile, but it sure can get first "kill" capability.

You tell me which is better. Look, lock, fire and turn (missile) like the F-35 or turn (aircraft), lock and fire like the MKI. The answer is so obvious. Note that the MKI can turn much faster than the missile can because it is spinning on its axis during the maneuver.

 

[asianobserve]

The same scenario, what do you think the super maneuverable Flanker would have done. With a regular fighter, that is a predictable path. But with the MKI or Su-35 the aircraft simply had to turn a little bit to the left and the Hornet would have died much earlier.

But by the time the super maneuverable Flanker completed its turn the AIM 9x missile is already heading towards it having made a faster turn. Note that I'm referring to F-35 with fully operational DAS not a legacy Hornet.

 

[asianobserve]

You tell me which is better. Look, lock, fire and turn (missile) like the F-35 or turn (aircraft), lock and fire like the MKI. The answer is so obvious. Note that the MKI can turn much faster than the missile can because it is spinning on its axis during the maneuver.

If the MKI is turning on its axis then it has almost zero airspeed. A sitting duck. And the MKI will begin to fall out form the sky.

 

[p2prada]

But by the time the super maneuverable Flanker completed its turn the AIM 9x missile is already heading towards it having made a faster turn.

I don't think you got my point at all. Do you see the dotted red line that is pointing towards the MKI? That would be MKI's kill path. The Hornet's kill path is roundabout and is restricted by the missile's kinematics.

You need to understand that missiles follow proportional navigation. Meaning they head towards the point in the sky where the seeker assumes the target to be at such and such time. But if the MKI suddenly decided to stop and take a shot at the same time, the Hornet or F-35 is dead even before the missile receives any kind of guidance information from the aircraft.

Which is the shortest path for a missile? A straight line or some roundabout, turning, curving path?

A straight line path increases the missile's kill probability by a huge margin. There is such a thing called time to target. If the MKI turns and fires its missile, the time to target is around 1-2 seconds at that distance. Comparatively it could be 7 seconds for the Hornet/F-35 to take out the MKI, that considering the missile is able to follow the less predictable flight pattern of the MKI.

Also, no. The Aim-9x or Python 4 isn't heading towards the MKI. It is headed towards a point in the sky where it has assumed the MKI will be if the MKI has followed the same flight path as it did during missile lock. This is how all missiles function. There should be some level of distance between the missile and the target to cater for any changes in the target's flight pattern.

We are talking about a missile at mach 2+ doing 50-100G against a nearly stationary target that is outside its immediate flight path which means the missile will have to do a lot of turning to return and that's not possible when the F-35 is already dead. Meaning the missile does not have 360 degree capability.

Note that I'm referring to F-35 with fully operational DAS not a legacy Hornet.

Regardless, I am talking about the missile's capability. Assume that the F-35 died the minute it fired its missile because the MKI has enough time to turn and fire its own missile. The question is whether the F-35s missile has enough capability to bring down the MKI. Considering the predicted flight path of the missile, the MKI is very safe.

If the MKI is turning on its axis then it has almost zero airspeed. A sitting duck.

Sitting duck only if there is another enemy around. In a 1v1, it isn't.

Even while it is a sitting duck, it can still fire missiles from any angle it wants. So, if the MKI is able to maneuver faster than the enemy wing man, he will be able to get a shot in before diving.

And the MKI will begin to fall out form the sky.

That's mostly nonsense. There are very few maneuvers where the TVC fighters "falls down" and these are maneuvers where the aircraft dives instead of "falling down" in order to retain energy. There are many maneuvers where the MKI can initiate TVC and still keep going up.

Regardless when a 30 tonne aircraft "falls," it will do the falling real fast and can still perform maneuvers while "falling." Especially when that falling is aided with 15 - 25 tonnes of thrust.

Only the Europeans have criticized TVC, for no apparent reason, especially considering most of the missile engagement tactics will be hidden even during friendly air exercises. Fact is they had also criticized stealth until they actually saw the F-22 in action during exercises. Their assumptions on TVC is flawed simply because they don't yet have real world experience with it.

 

[average american]

The above diagram is the exception rather then the rule, even in World War II more then 80 percent of losses were befor the pliot knew he was under attack or it was too late to react, since then the number has grew to 90 percent and expected to become 95 percent with the advent of stealth planes.

MiG-21 27 kills 95 losses
MiG-23 38 kills 62 losses
MiG-29 0 kills 14 losses


Ok, this board seriously needs an introduction to the basics of modern air combat. I am going to try to give one even though my gut tells me that this will basically be a huge waste of time. This is a very very long post. You don?t have to read it, stop now or forever hold your peace? I am not going to address close range combat here because it is just too complex and dissimilar to beyond visual range combat for it to be worthwhile to attempt to deal with both in one post/thread. I am also not going to get into a discussion of electronics warfare for the most part because that is also a topic in itself. To understand modern beyond visual range air combat you must understand modern air-to-air missiles. All modern beyond visual range missiles share certain characteristics. They are active radar homing. They posses datalinks for midcourse guidance updates, and under the right circumstances they are capable of defeating any maneuver a manned aircraft can attempt. The conditions under which a missile can not be evaded through any combination of maneuvers or acceleration is termed a missile?s ?no escape zone.? All modern missiles are highly reliable, highly accurate, and highly lethal. That means that if your aircraft is locked onto by such a missile while you are within its no escape zone the odds of your survival are very very poor. It is the objective in BVR air combat to place your opponent in that situation without allowing him to do the same to you. Now, to understand how someone would go about doing this you need to look at a typical head on BVR engagement. In this scenario we have two jets approaching each other head on. As the distance between them closes they will eventually detect each other on their radars. The range at which each aircraft is detected is determined by the power of the radar in use, and the RCS of the target. A plane like an Su-27 has a powerful radar, but it also has a giant RCS erasing its advantage for the most part. Once this has happened each pilot will begin planning when they are going to begin firing their missiles. Eventually one or both jets will make the decision to fire. When the missile first launches it is flying blind. Because its radar is so much smaller than that of the jet launching it, it can not detect its target until it has already completed most of its flight in a long range shot. This means that the missile is relying on its launch aircraft to guide it towards the target by providing position updates until it is close enough to lock on to the target itself. Eventually as the missile nears its target its active seeker will lock on to the target. At this point the missile will begin to home and the launch aircraft plays no further role in its flight. If the target is within the missile?s no escape zone the target will very likely be destroyed. If the target is not within the missile?s no escape zone the target aircraft can at least in theory escape, usually by doing a 180 degree turn and turning on its afterburners to run away from the missile causing the missile to fall short. Where things get complicated is that that last scenario did not account for the possibility that both aircraft may have fired. There are several ways this can play out. Assume we have two planes and two missiles. Jet A and Jet B and Missile A and Missile B. If Jet A has a huge advantage in radar and missile performance it will locate Jet B first. Move into relatively short range where its missiles will have Jet B within their no-escape zone almost the moment they launch and fire. Jet B will be destroyed before locating Jet A or firing itself. This scenario will take place if a modern jet is flying against a first-second generation jet that lacks a beyond visual range capability, or if an F-22 is flying against anything. Another scenario: If Jet A has a large advantage in radar and missile performance then it will locate Jet B first. Jet A will fire its first missile, probably at relatively long range and outside of its missile?s no-escape range. Jet B will probably not be aware that it has been fired on immediately and will continue to fly towards Jet A. At some point it will fly into missile A?s no-escape zone dooming itself. Meanwhile Jet A continues to track Jet B to provide Missile A with accurate target data in case Jet B maneuvers. Because the distance between the two jets is closing Jet B eventually locates Jet A and fires. This does Jet B little good however because Missile A is either about to lock on to Jet B or it has already locked on to Jet B, and is now homing. This leaves Jet A free to turn and burn to escape any potential return fire from Jet B. Jet B does not have that same option. Missile B was fired later and perhaps does not have as good as seeker. Because of this it has not yet locked on to Jet A. If Jet B stops providing positional updates Missile B will almost certainly miss because of Jet A?s maneuvers. Jet B is now in a very bad situati


Beyond visual range air combat

 

[asianobserve]

I don't think you got my point at all. Do you see the dotted red line that is pointing towards the MKI? That would be MKI's kill path. The Hornet's kill path is roundabout and is restricted by the missile's kinematics.

It's you who did not understand the illustration. The dotted red line pointing towards the MKI is simply a reference to the high off-boresight capability of the Phyton 4 missile, which is more than 60 degrees angle off boresight. The inscription in the diagram says it all:

>60 Degree Off-Boresight Angle

You need to understand that missiles follow proportional navigation. Meaning they head towards the point in the sky where the seeker assumes the target to be at such and such time.

IR missiles attacks a target by homing in on the target's thermal signature. Proportional navigation simply fine tunes the path towards the target.

Which is the shortest path for a missile? A straight line or some roundabout, turning, curving path?

A straight line path increases the missile's kill probability by a huge margin. There is such a thing called time to target. If the MKI turns and fires its missile, the time to target is around 1-2 seconds at that distance. Comparatively it could be 7 seconds for the Hornet/F-35 to take out the MKI, that considering the missile is able to follow the less predictable flight pattern of the MKI.

Even the MKI cannot turn on its axis in a merge. The airspeed of the jet will not allow that kind of a turn. Notice how the SU-35 in the following video has to climb straight up to bleed airspeed before inverting and dropping down before it can turn on its axis.


The turn in a merge on a dogfight is the 9G turn made at the first part of the video 00:04. Even with TVC it took the Su-35 in the video a full 6 seconds to make a 180 degree turn. I can only imagine the stress that ordinary fighter pilots (not the Russian aerobatic pilot in that video) has to go through in making that turn and targetting at the same time...

Also, no. The Aim-9x or Python 4 isn't heading towards the MKI. It is headed towards a point in the sky where it has assumed the MKI will be if the MKI has followed the same flight path as it did during missile lock. This is how all missiles function. There should be some level of distance between the missile and the target to cater for any changes in the target's flight pattern.

The diagram is only showing that it has 2 chances of hitting its target. As I said Phyton 4 is an IR missile and it homes in on the thermal signature of its target. Proportional navigation merely aids in guiding the IR missile to the target.

We are talking about a missile at mach 2+ doing 50-100G against a nearly stationary target that is outside its immediate flight path which means the missile will have to do a lot of turning to return and that's not possible when the F-35 is already dead.

The closing speeds of both jets on a merge will not permit the kind of turning on a dime like what we see at demos of SU-35s. Those jaw-dropping maneuvers only happens at air shows. Otherwise, if an MKI slows down like in 3:59 of the above video then he'll be a toast to the wingman of the plane he's pursuing.

Sitting duck only if there is another enemy around. In a 1v1, it isn't.

And a group of F-35s would even be more lethal due to the fact that more helmets are targeting. Then you have F-35's networking which has been described by the Israelis in this fashion:

"It's like a pack of leopards on a hunt. They work together in a network, not as individuals."

Israel boosts air force 'pack of leopards'|F-35|Forum :: F-16.net

That's mostly nonsense. There are very few maneuvers where the TVC fighters "falls down" and these are maneuvers where the aircraft dives instead of "falling down" in order to retain energy. There are many maneuvers where the MKI can initiate TVC and still keep going up.

Again, review the video posted above.