Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 14th Jul 2015, 11:42
  #6781 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
I'd be interested if you could post a link to you so called 'hard data' KenV. The countries involved in the F-35 program signed up before there was any 'hard data'.
Hempy is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 11:45
  #6782 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Not only may you "respectfully inquire" but you could find out for yourself.

However.

The US customers have no choice in the matter in any case. The Marines are happy because procurement is from the Navy aircraft budget and there has been no hint that they are expected to give up any other force structure to pay for the F-35. The AF's last leaders who advocated another fighter were fired.

The partner nations signed on when the jet was promised as 2700 pounds lighter, far less expensive to buy, available in 2012-13 and with equal operating costs to an F-16, and when Rafale and Typhoon were not in service and JAS 39E did not exist. None except Denmark has formally reviewed that commitment, despite the changes since that time.

Consequently, none of the "experts" in the other nations have access to the kind of data about non-F-35 solutions that would allow them to make a professional judgment as to whether (for instance) JAS 39E would meet their national needs at one-third the LCC. You don't get that access without a real competition (and not a Netherlands-style beauty contest).

Korea carried out a rules-based competition, which the F-15SE won. The decision was then reversed using additional criteria that were secret, so there are no grounds for assuming that U.S. political pressure was not influential if not decisive.

The F-35 won in Japan, against Typhoon (almost unthinkable) and Super Hornet, which was at that time still hobbled by official and unrealistic insistence that its OSD would be around 2030. It was chosen by Israel, for specific missions (read "A2G"), but Israel is not spending its own money.

Last edited by LowObservable; 14th Jul 2015 at 11:56.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 11:55
  #6783 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
HOBS and LOAL are both valid technical solutions (BVRAAMs are all LOAL) but it's the combination of the two that gets tricky, particularly at close range where the angle rates are highest. While in theory the datalinked IR AAMs (AIM-9X Block II and ASRAAM MLU) can do it, CM has outlined the limitations of launching from a ventral bay where LOS is interrupted.

So far, the F-35 has retreated from its initial position on HOBS weapons, which involved ASRAAM and a trapeze. This would still have been limited, compared to the F-22/J-20/T-50 solution, because of seeker FOV from the rail. Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode.

"Over-the-shoulder" can be LOBL if the target is near 9-3 when the missile is fired - I believe that's the main selling point for Python 5.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 11:57
  #6784 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Anyway, you can tell the mx where to look for its intended target and you can tell it what the target is doing at launch. You can't tell the mx what the target does after launch, you can't tell the mx what else might be in the (expanding) uncertainty box and you can't easily determine what the mx has targeted when and if it finds something to go after.
May I respectfully point out that the AIM-120 from day one way back in the '80s had a datalink that enabled the launch aircraft to guide the missile's flight and tell it when to turn on its internal sensor for terminal homing? In other words, if there was uncertainly about where the missile had gone and what it was going to see when it got there, the missile's internal sensor would simply not get turned on. The missile has improved mightily since.

Would I like my wingman shooting a LOAL mx into my furball? Erm, not really, thank you.
May I respectfully point out that the point of an LOAL shot is to AVOID the furball, and not to engage one.
KenV is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 12:18
  #6785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode.
May I respectfully point out that neither does the F-22. (When the F-22's trapeze is extended to allow the Sidewinder to see the target, the F-22 stops being stealthy). Does that make the F-22 "abysmal"?
KenV is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 12:25
  #6786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Come on Ken, you've got some good arguments, but regrettably they're being undermined by the passive aggressive manner with which you're framing them ("May I respectfully point out...").

There's no need for it - we're all enthusiasts here.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 12:26
  #6787 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549


I think everyone here understands the difference between weapons carriage that is stealthy until the WVR fight starts, and external carriage. In WVR, RCS by definition no longer matters. So your point is entirely invalid. Again.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 12:34
  #6788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
@Courtney, I'm sure someone would know. I would have thought the wingman would have the encoding to mid-course update the missile if needed or even launch and target a missile from the leading platform ?
a1bill is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 12:36
  #6789 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 799
gald rag: Be a bit messy. Another Iranian Airbus that is. Or a Malaysian 777 for that matter.....depends on your ROE I guess but you septics don't have the best of records do you..
Wow, an unrelated tragic mistaken shoot down, a conspiracy theory and a derogatory slur all in one line. You are quite efficient glad rag. Not funny or clever by any means if that was your intent, but efficient.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 12:41
  #6790 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
So far, the F-35 has retreated from its initial position on HOBS weapons, which involved ASRAAM and a trapeze. This would still have been limited, compared to the F-22/J-20/T-50 solution, because of seeker FOV from the rail. Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode.
This is quite shocking...but if they don't need them

Lingchi indeed.


glad rag is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 12:46
  #6791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by sandiego89 View Post
Wow, an unrelated tragic mistaken shoot down, a conspiracy theory and a derogatory slur all in one line. You are quite efficient glad rag. Not funny or clever by any means if that was your intent, but efficient.
tragic mistaken shoot down?

a conspiracy theory??

a derogatory slur ???

My, you really want to have your cake and eat it.

glad rag is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 13:03
  #6792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
KenV

F-35 has an excellent self-jamming capability
I'm not totally convinced that this is a helpful capability..............
malcrf is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 13:54
  #6793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,509
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
Come on Ken, you've got some good arguments, but regrettably they're being undermined by the passive aggressive manner with which you're framing them ("May I respectfully point out...").

There's no need for it - we're all enthusiasts here.
This would come across as less of a cheap shot if you got on glad rag about that septics nonsense he threw at a new arrival.

We were doing so well for a while, just going after the topic and not each other. I'd like to see us return to that.
(I'd also like to see the F-35 be less expensive, so maybe this is a vain hope).
As to ORI: Been on a few ships at sea doing ORI: a wringer.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 13:58
  #6794 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Point of order!

got on glad rag about that septics nonsense
It's not nonsense if it's a [however unpalatable] FACT!


glad rag is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 14:08
  #6795 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,509
Originally Posted by glad rag View Post
It's not nonsense if it's a [however unpalatable] FACT!


User of a perjorative term is not necessary, and the 20+ year ago Airbus shoot down by a guided missile cruiser (that did not have visual) has about BFA to do with the F-35.

There are enough axes to grind about the F-35 without brining in Off Topic issues. Please stick with the topic of the thread.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 14:23
  #6796 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Absolutely




glad rag is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 14:31
  #6797 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
I think everyone here understands the difference between weapons carriage that is stealthy until the WVR fight starts, and external carriage. In WVR, RCS by definition no longer matters. So your point is entirely invalid. Again.
I don't know how to state this in a "professional" and non "personal" manner as requested, but here goes: hilariously false. Again. A radar guided missile is NOT only used in the long range BVR environment. Many AMRAAMS for example have been shot in a WVR environment. Not even Sparrows were used BVR only and indeed most (the vast majority of?) Sparrows were shot WVR. So RCS is most certainly applicable in a WVR environment, especially in a head-on shot and in many (most?) shots taken from other than the target's six. And yes, I know that many modern IR guided missiles have a head-on capability and don't necessarily need a tail shot. That's why the F-35 is IR stealthy in every aspect but the rear. It takes away the opponent's chance for a shot anywhere but from the six. And certainly one knows that even in such very close quarters where a gun can be used, a gun engagement requires radar to determine range for the computer to compute the gun firing solution. Take away your opponent's ability to determine range, and you've effectively taken away your opponent's gun.

Last edited by KenV; 14th Jul 2015 at 14:45.
KenV is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 14:36
  #6798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
I'm not totally convinced that this is a helpful capability..............
In many (most?) scenarios it's not. That's why very few air arms even have jammer aircraft. But if you need it and don't have it, you're screwed. Kinda like a parachute or ejection seat. Most of the time you don't need it at all. But when you need it, you usually really really really need it.
KenV is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 14:38
  #6799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Lonewolf_50,
it's Summer, it's hot and ppl payed tickets to see tigers, lions, elephants, acrobats on the trapeze, bearded lady, strongest man, at al.
So, when the manager starts to excuse about beasts having diarrhea, acrobats running away with the circus money, bearded lady got accidentally shaved and strongest man lost weight when his fiancee left him, those same ppl became cranky.
Just sayin'...

Last edited by NITRO104; 14th Jul 2015 at 21:33.
NITRO104 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 14:42
  #6800 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Partly correct but not relevant or responsive.

I might have been more careful and made the point that in an engagement where I need HOBS, I am more than likely in mutual detection range (particularly as nose-on RCS is not the issue). Hence the transient RCS increase caused by missile rail extension is acceptable, and not equivalent to the throughout-the-mission RCS increase caused by external weapons.

As for guns: I'd like to see what target RCS, at relevant aspects, is required to disappear from a fighter-type radar at <2000 meters. I would suggest that it's a whole load of - dbsm.
LowObservable is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.