India's Interest in Lockheed F-35 Fighter

[pmaitra]

F-35 - a trillion dollar disaster

 

[p2prada]

Re: Documentry on f-35 joint strike fighter (1,2,3/5)

[video=youtube;UQB4W8C0rZI]

The F-35 joint Strike Fighter has been thoroughly criticized. It's too fat, has very big cross section, and the wings are too small, thus making it less manoeuverable. I won't be surprised if MoD falls for this one, yet again.[/video]

[video=youtube;UQB4W8C0rZI]

The opinions in these videos have been quashed. In other words, nonsense.

The F-35 carries more than the Super Hornet, at the level of a F-15, flies better than a F-16 (which is better than F-15 in many respects) and is stealthy.[/video]

 

[rahulrds1]

F-35 And Strategy from SLD[Second Lind of Defence]

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/UK-F-35-and-Strategy.pdf

 

[average american]

Data connection between F35 and PAKFA?
I doubt how much Americans and Russians would like to reveal their systems to each other.
Even they agree to do so, you still got another problem in the way: budget!

Its not going to happen, there is a tremendous amount of top secret technology in the F22 especially and the F35. Thats the reason we sell the F22 to no one, not even our closest allies at any price. 2/3 of the kills in the Gulf War were BVR and the reason there was not more was the fear of blue on blue kills,,,the F22 and F35 eliminates that possibility. by the equivlant of 7 Cray computers keeping track of everything in the sky. To tell the truth I have heard every thing from to 2 to 7 Cray computers to supercomputer equal to 4 Cray Computers. Any one have any idea of the computer power of the F22 and F35 and the possible uses of so much computer power.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

India Cuts Order of FGFA Fighter. F-35 on the Horizon?

India Cuts Order of FGFA Fighter. F-35 on the Horizon?

Fresh tensions in Indo-Russian bilateral ties are bound to surface soon as India is set to cut its Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) order by one-third. India will now be inducting only 144 FGFA instead of the originally scheduled 214.

 

[pmaitra]

The opinions in these videos have been quashed. In other words, nonsense.

The F-35 carries more than the Super Hornet, at the level of a F-15, flies better than a F-16 (which is better than F-15 in many respects) and is stealthy.

Quashed? Just because you said so?

Again arguing without references!

 

[p2prada]

Quashed? Just because you said so?

Again arguing without references!

Naa. I have followed their opinions. It's based on factors that may have been present on older generation aircraft. But have nothing to do with the F-35.

For eg: It is wrongly believed that the F-35s turn rate won't be any better than a 3rd gen aircraft. In truth, it is better than all other aircraft and matches the F-22 in most aspects.

T/W isn't everything if the aircraft weighs 13.5 tons and carries 8 tons of fuel. No other aircraft has such a high fuel load. F-22 weighs 19 tons and carries 8 tons of fuel. F-35 is really like the Su-27(16 ton aircraft, 10.5 tons fuel) when it comes to fuel load and fuel can be managed to maintain a high T/W ratio. Combine that with a modern FCS system, we can realize why the F-35 will fly better than any legacy aircraft that it will replace including the F-16.

Acceleration is third best in the USAF(F-22 and F-15). F-16 needs afterburner to keep up with the F-35. F-35's subsonic acceleration matches the F-22.

The problem is the videos are a gore misrepresentation of facts. According to new pilots who moved from F-16s to F-35s, the things the F-35 can do the F-16 can never do unless completely clean. Regardless of the fact that F-16 never flies clean and still cannot be half as capable as the F-35 at the same time.

You can just Google these things.

Quashed because the USAF says so.

 

[pmaitra]

@p2prada,

The F-35 is in the middle of a political tug-of-war. It has seen delays, and engine troubles.

You are correct on the speed, but on wings, you are not. I would like you to address the cross section.

I am interested to know why USAF allegedly likes it. Can you address the specific points in the videos, other than 'USAF said so' kinds of justifications?

 

[nrj]

Navy hasn't even finalized its future carrier designs, Naval air defense strategy is unknown.

And what would it do of F35 ?

JSF is irrelevant & unproven for Indian forces. Rafale has edge over any other naval fighter given the small number IN is looking to acquire.

 

[pmaitra]

Lockheed Martin Video - A Pilot's Perspective


Internal weapons bay - very impressive.

Lift-dedicated engine? Well, that's a very inefficient idea, but we have seen it enter production with the Yakovlev-38. Lift-dedicated fan is a big improvement over lift-dedicated engine, and this was first implemented in the Yakovlev-41M, which never really entered production, and now in F-35C, while the USN is busy sorting out the issues and adapting their carriers for this.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Documentry on f-35 joint strike fighter (4,5/5)

The F-35 joint Strike Fighter has been thoroughly criticized. It's too fat, has very big cross section, and the wings are too small, thus making it less manoeuverable. I won't be surprised if MoD falls for this one, yet again.

All I said was the avionics and sensors and the sensor fusion along with asea radar,which would be an incredible force multiplier in real combat.

Along with the new generation of air to air weapons on it.

 

[p2prada]

@p2prada,

You are correct on the speed, but on wings, you are not. I would like you to address the cross section.

I am interested to know why USAF allegedly likes it. Can you address the specific points in the videos, other than 'USAF said so' kinds of justifications?

There are a few misconceptions, both in the video and the other critics, in how the F-35 is to be used.

In the air force, the F-35 will replace the F-16 and A-10. While I may not support the idea of F-35 replacing the A-10, but the USAF knows better along with known progression of current gen munitions compared to the A-10s strafing run with its massive cannons. Maybe they believe today's precision weapons like Brimstone/Hellfire 2 will be more effective with less risk involved. But at the same time, the Russians don't want to give it up and will be working on a Su-25 replacement.

As an F-16 replacement. The F-35 is a heavy fighter which flies as good or better than a clean F-16. That's saying a lot. Both aircraft have high wing loading. In terms of simple physics that we learn in school and college, a low wing loading is better and a high wing loading is bad. But, they don't mention anything about drag, or try to correlate it to the subject. They end up treating drag as an entirely different aspect. I remember explaining the same to you about oxygenated blood and de-oxygenated blood and how simple they make things at lower levels of education. The logic is simple here, low wing loading is very good, but if you want to get into a turning fight they you better utilize all your advantages in the first turn or you are dead. High wing loading does not turn as good, but your fighter does not lose energy rapidly and you can have a second chance instead of simply dropping like a brick after the first turn. Therefore, the difference between high and low wing loading. Here, the priority is to get something in between for a requirement that you have decided after 30-40 years of flying aircraft with similar qualities.

The problem with wing loading is pilots want a low wing loading aircraft, but a sustained turn rate superior to the F-16, yeah right! They did not get that, but a high wing loading aircraft still delivered a STR superior to the F-16. If we go by what the youtube Karnal said about F-22 having a STR of 28deg/s and test pilots claiming a slightly lesser figure compared to the F-22, then the F-35 has a superior STR compared to Rafale and EF-2000 as of today.

Cross section relates to drag, well, you beat it with power. And F-35 has that power. The acceleration alone counts. The F-22 has a greater cross section compared to F-15 too, I don't see anybody complaining about it.

For the same reasons, USMC is set to replace the Harrier with the F-35, a far superior platform.

The biggest criticism for the F-35 comes from USN requirements for long legs and small payload. The F-35s combat radius with internal fuel is around 1000Km. Not enough for Navy requirements for long range strike. However when they criticized based on these points, they kept relating it to the Super Hornet. However the F-35C will be replacing the older F/A-18 Hornets and not the Super Hornets. Today we know that the actual aircraft to replace the SH will be the new 6th gen aircraft for which the USN has sent an RFI to Boeing this year. Similarly USAF will be working on the next generation bomber which is a strike aircraft capable of carrying up to 12 tons internally, 10000Km and an endurance of 50-100 hours with mid air refueling. They want nearly 200 of these.

Regardless the F-35 can carry 2-6 AMRAAMs internally and also has enough space to carry 2 1000Kg bombs. As much or superior to the F-16 depending on the role.

The RAND report about F-35 that can't turn, can't fight, can't run is pure BS. Turn rate has been taken care of above. Can't fight is also nonsense because the 800mm radar array is very big along with the fact that the BVR load is optimal for 5th gen situations. Need to combine that with difficult to beat missiles. Can't run, I don't know why they are comparing it to Flankers because even the F-16 cannot run in that respect.

Some of the criticism has to do with the fact that many countries are planning to use the F-35 as an air superiority platform against Flankers. Well, it is far, far superior to the F-16, so I don't get this point at all. Earlier most were using F-16s against Flanker nations which aren't many as a matter of fact.

So, these were really the most important points that the F-35 was criticized about. Stealth is the single greatest advantage here. Range, payload, maneuverability aren't an issue here. Take these factors out and the only valid criticism against F-35 is the delay and rising costs. Overall the F-35 is better than all legacy aircraft today.

 

[pmaitra]

@p2prada, thank you for the detailed explanation. That was very informative.

While I accept the majority of the things you have said, I disagree with a couple of things. I will elaborate later.

 

[ersakthivel]

grippen wing loading----------------283 kg/m² (58 lb/ft²)
F-16 wing loading ---------------88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)
RAFALE wing loading----------------306 kg/m² (62.8 lb/ft²)
TEJAS wing loading ---------------247 kg/m² (50.7 lb/ft²)

it is a common knowledge the high wingloading fighter has excellent sea level turn rates.And they can easily out turn the low wing loading fighter.this was very important in the pre awacs days of low level tree top flying to evade massive ground radars along with dumb bombing ability.

Nowadays under AWACSS cover this tactic is not that effective and also long range stand off weapons are available to strike from higher altitude and higher distance.A particular problem with low altitude flying is the proliferation of sams.No matter whether you are F-22 or PAKFA ,there will be heat emissions and you are a toast against a bevy of sams as time to take counter measures is not available.

Grippen has way lower wing loading than F-16 .
Still Grippen can compete neck to neck with F-16 in any close combat.
Thrust to weight ratio,wing loading ,aoa all combine to give a good sustained turn rate(STR).
STR is not a function of wingloading alone.

While high wing loading fighters go for turning fight ,the low wing loading fighters go for vertical maneuvering fights.That is the basic aerodynamic idea.

If challenged in turning fight they use their higher instantaneous turn rate bestowed by low wing loading to turn into the high wing loading fighter ,with higher nose pointing authority , and launch a couple of HMDS guided WVR missiles. There is practically no escape for a high wing loading fighter from this, as they traditionally have a lower instantaneous turn rate due to high wing loading .

The problem with high wing loading fighters is that they cannot give a better performance in higher altittude.
WHere drag is much less due to lower air pressure and lower wing loading gives enough lift to overcome the low pressure air.

That's why in high himalayan altitudes like LEh airbase Most of the contenders failed to take off with meaningful load as specified by IAF ,including F-16,F-18.Rumour has it that only one or two achieved this.Still we don't know exactly as which two were they.

Most modern fighters has to fly at higher altitude to give a longer range for their BVrs.For example a BVr which has a range of 150 km in high altitude will hardly have a range of 30 km in lower altitude.

And Low wing loading deltas are highly preferable for trans sonic optimized flight high altitude flights, which give them longer ranges.

PAKFA wing loading ---------------------330-470 kg/m2 (67-96 lb/ft2)
f22 raptor wing loading --------------------77 lb/ft² (375 kg/m²).

But F-22 raptor and PAKFA use their thrust vectoring for better climb rates to get the the advantages of low wing loading charecteristics.

the problem with F-35 is it's lower Thrust to weight ratio ,once it's stealth cover is blown as it would be in the decades to come it won't stand a chance against su-30 mki level kinematic kings.

With a wing high loading of 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²; 526 kg/m2 loaded)(meaning worser climb rates) and a thrust to weight ratio of 1.07, it has no chance of winning kinematic maneuvering high energy fights.It's STR too will be worse as it is a function of all the three specs namely Thrust to weight ratio,wing loading ,aoa

mk-2 tejas is slated to have a much higher TWR than this.Currently mk-1 has the same TWR with 84 kn engine.Even this will go higer with SP series production engine having a bit higher thrust than that.

Top tech nations like US loathe to induct a new fighter which has such lower specs,whether stealth or not.
In fact makers of F-35 are taking into account the death of stealth by introducing SPECTRA like active radar cancellation tech into F-35.That's exactly the reason the fighter is ridiculed as death of stealth comes F-35 won't stand a chance in dog fight.

That is the same reason the chinese J-20 is ridiculed in the web as it won't have any better TWR engine than AL-31 FP specs of 7.8(same as GTRE kaveri) it is already called a maritime bomber, No amount of canards will save it from close combat if it doesnot have higher TWR, low wing loading and good AOA.

There is really no point in making a bigger fighter with lower TWR relying on stealth alone, that's why the 16 to 18 ton weight AMCA specs too seems over ambitious considering the indian engine tech standadrs.

 

[ersakthivel]

The RAND group warns against the assumptions of BVR only warfare fighters based upon stealth as,
All long range BVr kill box calculation is based upon the enemy fighter having next to nill ECMs and no missile approach warning.

It says the odds of a BVR hit in tomorrow's airwarfare is one in 10 or so.
The stealth fighters have a lessser weapon load than 4.5 th gen due to their energy consuming high tech needs.
Typhoon has a missile approach warning of 100 kms. It can easily turn away from BVrs of F-22 even without the help of ECm .
If the warning is enhanced further, then the chances of lower weapon carrying F-22 against TYPHOON can't be justified by the enourmous cost difference and maintenance costs.

 

[p2prada]

That's why in high himalayan altitudes like LEh airbase Most of the contenders failed to take off with meaningful load as specified by IAF ,including F-16,F-18.Rumour has it that only one or two achieved this.Still we don't know exactly as which two were they.

What nonsense is this?

Who told you BS like that?

Ever heard of cold tests?

 

[ersakthivel]

Livefist: Four MMRCA Contenders Fail Leh Trials!

From the same source you quoted.I don't think they went to LEH without checking cold start issues.It is the failiure to carry meaningful load and do combat maneuvering at high altitude.It was reported in THE HINDU's Tuesday edition according the LIVEFIST.
Because these 4 fighters operate routinely in cold start conditions usually, SO it is not possible that all their tech regarding cold start failed in unision.It must be take off and maneuvering with meaningful load.

But tejas went to leh ,was parked on the tarmac whole night soaked in cold weather and next morning succeded the cold weather trials with 2x1200 literes and some air to air munitions with ease.That's what low wingloading means providing higher lift in higher altitude where the drag is less, air is rarefied and air pressure is also less.

The same applies to maneuvering in high altitude.

According to same livefist grippen which didnot participate in the test, separately did well later, incidentally grippen and tejas both have the lowest wingloading among 4th gens.

It is not for nothing that mirage was called for precision strikes on munktho-dalo base camp of pakis with laser guided bombs in kargil war.It can negotiate heights better because it has lowest wing loading of all the IAF crafts then in service.

So in himalayn heights take off and landing will be very difficult for high wingloading crafts,The same reason the chinese replaced their J-10s with dukhoi clones J-11 in tibetian airfields, because modelled on lavi which was modelled on F-16 ,it too has much higher wingloading like F-16.

 

[p2prada]

Now tell me where in the article it quotes the MRCA aircraft actually failed in a particular parameter.

I want a link saying that it failed in what you stated, ie carrying a combat load with fuel tanks and weapon load like you stated here,

t is the failiure to carry meaningful load and do combat maneuvering at high altitude.It was reported in THE HINDU's Tuesday edition according the LIVEFIST.

There is only one media report about the cold trials from IAF. And the report only talked about one thing. All contenders need to make slight adjustments in fuel pipes and everything will be solved.

Nearly all the MRCA contenders are spitting out far more power than the puny LCA. So, don't even bring it into the same category. It only proves how inadequate your learning is.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with what I asked.

 

[ersakthivel]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/31930-ajai-shukla-india-s-light-fighter-7.html

I don't know from where people find shit to write about LCA like this.My God I am reading the thread for the first time. 3 or 4 mig-21s can wipeout an entire squadron of LCA. In reality a mig-21 pilot will never see an LCA in his radar before he sees a long range BVR from LCA.

There are ways to fly LCA with as less RCS reflections that were not even imagined during the designing of MIG-21s.



Once two third of MIG-21's fuel is finished it behaves dangerously due to design flaw, according to open source.
Insurmountable engine problems.

Mig-21s were built to shoot down straggling bombers not FBW , 4.5 th gen aircrafts which have way lower RCS,way higher TWR, way higher powered radar and way better BVr missiles.

 

[ersakthivel]

Now tell me where in the article it quotes the MRCA aircraft actually failed in a particular parameter.

I want a link saying that it failed in what you stated, ie carrying a combat load with fuel tanks and weapon load like you stated here,


There is only one media report about the cold trials from IAF. And the report only talked about one thing. All contenders need to make slight adjustments in fuel pipes and everything will be solved.

REALLY, SO all contenders arrived at LEH not doing this slight adjustment.

Nearly all the MRCA contenders are spitting out far more power than the puny LCA. So, don't even bring it into the same category. It only proves how inadequate your learning is.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with what I asked.

If you spit out power with punny wing area you may go fast in a straight line and maneuver with the help of control surface.
But the most important thing at higher altitude LIFT comes from wing area not engine power or canards or control surface.

You can pull all day long on all control surfaces but you cannot maneuver in vertical plane like a low wing loading tejas ,
if you don't have large wing area to generate lift , and that is the meaning of the term low wing loading.



In the ADA TEjas thread I actually quoted a link from THE HINDU and you didn't reply to that either.

I will find it and post it here later.Since the discussion between you and me in ADA tejas thread was a bit long just about 100 pages and 500 posts,please excuse me for some delay as mountain of materials need to be sifted.

You have once quoted LIVEFIST in AMCA thread , so you cannot say that is a source you don't know.

It is quite understandable that you didn't want to comment on the LCA's performance in LEH as it will give away the game.

Because even with underpowered engine LCA managed that is the testimony to the fact that it was designed for indian conditions in mind.