F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Built for 9g? Maybe the A Model, but only when/if cleared.
Of course more g is good for ground avoidance, but the main reasons for manoeuvre are ACM and to reduce the effectiveness of incoming missiles at longer range - remember the old F Pol manoeuvre? The more g available, the greater and faster the vector change at greater speeds = greater manoeuvre demanded by the missile's guidance laws = greater energy bleed.
Back to the ACM question, given the F-35's relatively poor Vmax and acceleration, there will always remain the probability that an enemy will continue to close their range as an engagement matures. In the case of the B Model doing its defence of the fleet, continual "crank and pump" stops becoming an option against a raid at some point. After that, you either kill them all BVR or stand and fight. Until someone invents an AAM with a 100% Pk, no one can say ACM is obsolete. You may decide you don't WANT to do it (understandable if you're in a B Model), but that doesn't mean it's not possible that you'll end up doing it.
Of course more g is good for ground avoidance, but the main reasons for manoeuvre are ACM and to reduce the effectiveness of incoming missiles at longer range - remember the old F Pol manoeuvre? The more g available, the greater and faster the vector change at greater speeds = greater manoeuvre demanded by the missile's guidance laws = greater energy bleed.
Back to the ACM question, given the F-35's relatively poor Vmax and acceleration, there will always remain the probability that an enemy will continue to close their range as an engagement matures. In the case of the B Model doing its defence of the fleet, continual "crank and pump" stops becoming an option against a raid at some point. After that, you either kill them all BVR or stand and fight. Until someone invents an AAM with a 100% Pk, no one can say ACM is obsolete. You may decide you don't WANT to do it (understandable if you're in a B Model), but that doesn't mean it's not possible that you'll end up doing it.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmmm.
It seems to me there's a LOT more to ACM nowadays than just the ability to maneuver to point your nose at your intended target. With helmet sighting/cueing systems and IR dog fight missiles with wide field of regard sensors that can be cued to look in a specific direction and lock on, ultimate agility/maneuverability is not nearly as critical. Note the qualifier there. Not nearly as critical. In the first days/hours of an air war, IF your opponent has significant air defense assets (and the training not to mention the will to use them effectively), you send in air-superiority fighters (F-22 Raptor?) to sweep the skies before you send in your attack assets, or as escorts to protect your attack assets. The F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter and was never intended to be, yet has pretty decent maneuverability/agility for self-defense in the event it gets jumped. It does a LOT of things VERY well. It does NOT do everything and was never intended to.
It seems to me there's a LOT more to ACM nowadays than just the ability to maneuver to point your nose at your intended target. With helmet sighting/cueing systems and IR dog fight missiles with wide field of regard sensors that can be cued to look in a specific direction and lock on, ultimate agility/maneuverability is not nearly as critical. Note the qualifier there. Not nearly as critical. In the first days/hours of an air war, IF your opponent has significant air defense assets (and the training not to mention the will to use them effectively), you send in air-superiority fighters (F-22 Raptor?) to sweep the skies before you send in your attack assets, or as escorts to protect your attack assets. The F-35 is NOT an air superiority fighter and was never intended to be, yet has pretty decent maneuverability/agility for self-defense in the event it gets jumped. It does a LOT of things VERY well. It does NOT do everything and was never intended to.
KenV - Dominant BVR through stealth is the 5GenTM mantra, and Team JSF also talks about EO-DAS, HMDS and HOBS as the winning formula for WVR.
Can the F-35 do both on the same mission?
By the way: when reading the leaked report, prospective F-35B operators should add 3200 pounds of empty weight, concentrated behind the cockpit, and consider the effects of smaller H-stabs and flaperons.
Can the F-35 do both on the same mission?
By the way: when reading the leaked report, prospective F-35B operators should add 3200 pounds of empty weight, concentrated behind the cockpit, and consider the effects of smaller H-stabs and flaperons.
Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Jul 2015 at 12:35.
Ken,
You're overlooking the fact that it works both ways. You may not need to manoeuvre so hard to get a firing solution with HMS and other off-boresight features, but neither does your opponent. And you still need the g/turn rate/energy to defeat the bad guy's solution. Take the argument to its extreme (purely for illustrative purposes), do you think you can fly in straight lines shooting jets way off boresight and survive?
Off boresight is not new, we've been doing it for decades. It's an advantage if you're the only player in town that has it. Don't think it changes the laws of physics though.
Are you suggesting that we plan on NOT going against a foe that has any of those qualities? If that is the case then either the F-35 is not necessary or it is inadequate. It is certainly starting to become more obvious that its air-to-air capability is very weak.
Fine if you have Raptor, or indeed any other Air Superiority assets available. The Royal Navy is getting F-35 as its only fast jet. Are you now saying that it won't do the job for them?
You're overlooking the fact that it works both ways. You may not need to manoeuvre so hard to get a firing solution with HMS and other off-boresight features, but neither does your opponent. And you still need the g/turn rate/energy to defeat the bad guy's solution. Take the argument to its extreme (purely for illustrative purposes), do you think you can fly in straight lines shooting jets way off boresight and survive?
Off boresight is not new, we've been doing it for decades. It's an advantage if you're the only player in town that has it. Don't think it changes the laws of physics though.
Originally Posted by KenV
IF your opponent has significant air defense assets (and the training not to mention the will to use them effectively)
you send in air-superiority fighters (F-22 Raptor?) to sweep the skies before you send in your attack assets, or as escorts to protect your attack assets
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 2nd Jul 2015 at 12:29.
Moreover, the F-35 business plan involves the elimination of all Western air-dominance fighters (except the F-22) in the long run. Certainly, few air forces can afford two fighter types, especially if one is F-35.
But as for flying in a straight line and shooting off boresight, that's old hat. Done years ago and worked abso
inglutley fine!
But as for flying in a straight line and shooting off boresight, that's old hat. Done years ago and worked abso
inglutley fine!
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This situation certainly illustrates why the USN wants to retain their Super Hornets well into the 2040s, and suggests that they've known that the F-35 is bit of a pig all along. And by adopting some - if not all - of the proposed Advanced Super Hornet upgrades, you can safely reduce F-35C procurement - and save some money in the process.
The only winner in this fiasco is the USMC, who will certainly get a huge upgrade in performance (at great expense, but not as much as it could have been if it were not a joint development program) over their AV-8Bs. As for those who advocate ditching big deck carriers for LHAs with F-35Bs, a perfect illustration why not to do that.
The only winner in this fiasco is the USMC, who will certainly get a huge upgrade in performance (at great expense, but not as much as it could have been if it were not a joint development program) over their AV-8Bs. As for those who advocate ditching big deck carriers for LHAs with F-35Bs, a perfect illustration why not to do that.
Last edited by Maus92; 2nd Jul 2015 at 13:40.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're overlooking the fact that it works both ways. You may not need to manoeuvre so hard to get a firing solution with HMS and other off-boresight features, but neither does your opponent. And you still need the g/turn rate/energy to defeat the bad guy's solution. Take the argument to its extreme (purely for illustrative purposes), do you think you can fly in straight lines shooting jets way off boresight and survive?
Are you suggesting that we plan on NOT going against a foe that has any of those qualities?
If other air forces have plans to engage a foe that has 4+ generation air superiority fighters, then they should buy something other than the F-35. Can you name a 4+ generation air superiority fighter that is currently in production that they could purchase instead?
If other air forces only buy F-35s, then yes, I am suggesting they should not plan on going up against a foe that has 4+ generation air superiority fighters and the will and training to use them. How many such foes can you name?
The Royal Navy is getting F-35 as its only fast jet. Are you now saying that it won't do the job for them?
Well, once again, I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet, Ken, but coming at the issue from opposite directions. To answer your question, "we" meant those nations that have been sucked into going down the all-purpose, single-type route.
No, it was NEVER intended to be a fighter, but I think its air-to-air capabilities were both over-stated in the early days and over-expected. I can't demonstrate that in public, but I was involved in the trials designed to evaluate that. They may have been valid trials had the specs not changed (for the worse) over the years and had the organisation running them not had a vested interest in maintaining their credibility in the short term.
My Royal Navy counterpart in those days was very clear that the Admiralty were convinced that a next generation SHAR replacement would do the job, despite evidence to the contrary.
I'm not as concerned about F-35 in RAF service because, in the short term at least, there will be better air-superiority fighters and other assets around to do as you suggest. But if the Navy wants its global power projection back it's going to need something to bridge its air defence gap. Somehow, I suspect the FAA just want to be back in the game.
No, it was NEVER intended to be a fighter, but I think its air-to-air capabilities were both over-stated in the early days and over-expected. I can't demonstrate that in public, but I was involved in the trials designed to evaluate that. They may have been valid trials had the specs not changed (for the worse) over the years and had the organisation running them not had a vested interest in maintaining their credibility in the short term.
My Royal Navy counterpart in those days was very clear that the Admiralty were convinced that a next generation SHAR replacement would do the job, despite evidence to the contrary.
I'm not as concerned about F-35 in RAF service because, in the short term at least, there will be better air-superiority fighters and other assets around to do as you suggest. But if the Navy wants its global power projection back it's going to need something to bridge its air defence gap. Somehow, I suspect the FAA just want to be back in the game.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps they should simply rename it A-35 and be done with it.
After the Saber, the only USAF air superiority fighters were the F-15 and F-22, yet all but the A-7 and A-10 had an "F" prefix. USN tends to be more "honest" and develops and fields aircraft with an "A" prefix. And USN's strike fighter, the Hornet, has an F/A prefix. Maybe the F-35C should have a small "f" and big "A" prefix (f/A-35C ?) On the other hand, against 3rd and 4th gen fighters, the F-35 would consistently do well and could properly have a big "F".
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your question, "we" meant those nations that have been sucked into going down the all-purpose, single-type route.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it was NEVER intended to be a fighter, but I think its air-to-air capabilities were both over-stated in the early days and over-expected.
Slightly off topic, but I'll bite. The "old F-15" cockpit with its gauges worked fine. The electronic displays only replicate the old dials. There are plenty of screens in the 15 where they are needed. Sure, screens are lovely, but they are not what defines the effective generation or effectiveness of a fighter.
Back on topic.
Back on topic.
Non-US fighters contemporary with the F-35 don't all have HMD, correct. At least not as yet, although I suspect more will by the time Block 3 is operational. (I believe Typhoon is getting a new HMD, and JAS 39E will have one.) On the other hand, IRIS-T is out there with a lot of customers, as is Python 5, and both have their advantages over AIM-9X.
Most current-production fighters have a sensor-fused TSD, also. Not quite as sexy as the big flat screen, but a very big step beyond the F-15C.
Most current-production fighters have a sensor-fused TSD, also. Not quite as sexy as the big flat screen, but a very big step beyond the F-15C.
"USAF has a dedicated air superiority fighter to go up against such a foe, and it isn't the F-35."
The trouble is we have so few of the "real" air superiority fighters, unless we continue to keep F-15 in service. F-16 is no slouch either by the way, but oh yeah, its a strike fighter too.
Dumb as dirt to stop building F-22's considering the immense cost of development. Stopped on the disingenuous premise that the JSF is less expensive! We should have 500 or more F-22s for air superiority. Don't expect the F-35 (or A-35 or whatever you want to call it) to fill the gap. Heck its a one seat flying keyboard of computers and displays. Did I mention we don't "quite" have the software right yet, and oh yeah the primary flight display - yeah its not quite there either.
To help afford it, and to free up maintenance personnel, can the A-10. That's a winner and of course, no worries, the F-35 can do CAS. Yeah, like we'll see them send that expensive vehicle to do what only the A-10 does so well.
Military procurement - a true nightmare, no matter which side of the Atlantic you are.
The trouble is we have so few of the "real" air superiority fighters, unless we continue to keep F-15 in service. F-16 is no slouch either by the way, but oh yeah, its a strike fighter too.
Dumb as dirt to stop building F-22's considering the immense cost of development. Stopped on the disingenuous premise that the JSF is less expensive! We should have 500 or more F-22s for air superiority. Don't expect the F-35 (or A-35 or whatever you want to call it) to fill the gap. Heck its a one seat flying keyboard of computers and displays. Did I mention we don't "quite" have the software right yet, and oh yeah the primary flight display - yeah its not quite there either.
To help afford it, and to free up maintenance personnel, can the A-10. That's a winner and of course, no worries, the F-35 can do CAS. Yeah, like we'll see them send that expensive vehicle to do what only the A-10 does so well.
Military procurement - a true nightmare, no matter which side of the Atlantic you are.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not the USAF way. The only USAF developed "A" aircraft was the A-10. All the other USAF air to ground fighters (like the F-105, F-111, F-117, etc, etc) had an "F" prefix. Yeah, they flew the A-7, but that was a US Navy bird.
After the Saber, the only USAF air superiority fighters were the F-15 and F-22, yet all but the A-7 and A-10 had an "F" prefix. USN tends to be more "honest" and develops and fields aircraft with an "A" prefix. And USN's strike fighter, the Hornet, has an F/A prefix. Maybe the F-35C should have a small "f" and big "A" prefix (f/A-35C ?) On the other hand, against 3rd and 4th gen fighters, the F-35 would consistently do well and could properly have a big "F".
After the Saber, the only USAF air superiority fighters were the F-15 and F-22, yet all but the A-7 and A-10 had an "F" prefix. USN tends to be more "honest" and develops and fields aircraft with an "A" prefix. And USN's strike fighter, the Hornet, has an F/A prefix. Maybe the F-35C should have a small "f" and big "A" prefix (f/A-35C ?) On the other hand, against 3rd and 4th gen fighters, the F-35 would consistently do well and could properly have a big "F".