F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[KenV]

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.

[KenV]

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.

[NITRO104]

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'...

[LowObservable]

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.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by KenV

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.

Absolutely correct about command guidance for AMRAAM, Ken, but I was talking about IR mx and I did also say that you COULD use command datalink, but then the mx needs to be supported in flight until it goes active and acquires - hence my reference to the uncertainty box.

AIM120 is a command link medium range mx with an active RADAR seeker. It does not have a thermal seeker and there is no feedback to indicate whether it can see its target (until AIM-120D P3I Phase 4 with bi-directional DL). That is why it has an uncertainty box. There is always uncertainty about the mx and the intended target.

There is a world of difference between supporting a medium or long range mx to a target at long-range and supporting a short range mx against a close target with a high sightline rate and manoeuvre- especially if your sensor was the MkII eyeball which doesn't feed range information to the datalink.

In case I wasn't clear at post #6784 I was talking specifically about a generic, advanced IR mx launched from the internal weapons bay of a stealth bomber of a similar design to F-35. I seem to have confused people by not making that clear. Sorry.

[ORAC]

In many (most?) scenarios it's not.

Ken, I believe it was intended as an ironic comment joke in reference to your statement that the F-35 had an "excellent self-jamming capability".

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Royal Aeronautical Society: Insight Blog: Does the f-35 really suck in air combat?

[Courtney Mil]

CMANO is an 80€ Desk top simulation. It is unclassified and available to buy in the public domain. Whilst it looks like lovely fun and is not without its great points, it is not a valid evaluation tool for a new bomber.

[O-P]

WEBF,


Interesting report, thanks. It appears that the scenario was flown in a clean RF arena, giving the F35s passive sensors just one thing to concentrate on...the SUs.


I just wonder, 'cos I don't know, how the typically cluttered RF picture found in Northern Europe would affect the F35s ability to classify, and target, at extended range?

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by KenV

USN does NOT accept that the F-35 is "not stealthy enough in all aspects to penetrate enemy defenses." That is a false characterization. All versions of the F-35 are sufficiently stealthy in all aspects without an EW escort. In addition, the F-35 has an excellent self-jamming capability. USN has Growlers because the majority of its fighters for the foreseeable future will NOT be all aspect stealthy and will require an escort jammer.

Ken, the F-35 RCS reduction is optimised for one band only and the aircraft does not have a credible jamming capability either.

Quite simply no jamming system is installed, so the only jamming effect it can deliver is via the radar (within the limited frequencies it can cover).

If you don't want the bad guys to use their long-range search radars to pinpoint your F-35 package an off-board jamming capability, such as that provided by the Growlers, is rather handy.

[KenV]

AIM120 is a command link medium range mx with an active RADAR seeker. It does not have a thermal seeker and there is no feedback to indicate whether it can see its target (until AIM-120D P3I Phase 4 with bi-directional DL). That is why it has an uncertainty box. There is always uncertainty about the mx and the intended target.

Agreed. However, although the missile does not link back its location, the launch platform can track it along with the intended target. F-35s are especially adept at tracking their own missile(s) and can even do so passively. If the missile strays and/or the target maneuvers to avoid the missile the missile can be redirected and/or never have its terminal homing guidance switched on. And I agree that even in this situation, plenty of uncertainty remains. However, the F-35s combination of sensors and sensor fusion means the probabilities go up significantly in favor of a successful shot and successful kill.

There is a world of difference between supporting a medium or long range mx to a target at long-range and supporting a short range mx against a close target with a high sightline rate and manoeuvre- especially if your sensor was the MkII eyeball which doesn't feed range information to the datalink.

Agreed. And there-in lies the power of the F-35's sensor suite and (alleged "contradictory") helmet display system. The helmet, and thus the sensors and weapons, know where the "MkII eyeball" is looking and the fused and linked DAS and radar pictures (the DAS and radar pictures of ALL the F-35s in the fight) compute the range automatically. And if I may direct your memory to Vietnam, Sparrow missiles were used at "short range against a close target with a high sightline rate and manoeuvre" on many an occasion. The same thing happened later over Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the skies over and adjacent to Israel using AMRAAMs. So "close in high maneuvering" fights have not restricted the pilots to using IR missiles and using radar guided missiles is most assuredly appropriate and effective in those situations. Thus lack of an IR missile is not a deal breaker in such a fight. In short, the F-35 is most assuredly capable of fighting within visual range and is most assuredly not crippled by its lack of an internal IR missile. And in such a fight its stealth remains an asset. And in such a fight its fused and linked DAS and radar (along with its "contradictory" helmet system) also remain assets.

[KenV]

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.

I clearly did not make myself clear. So I will try again. The lack of an internal IR missile does not prevent the F-35 from engaging in a close-in, visual fight. Radar guided missiles (including Sparrow and AMRAAM) have been used for nearly half a century in close-in, visual fights. And AMRAAM can be carried internally by the F-35. In short, the F-35 is most assuredly capable of fighting within visual range and is most assuredly not crippled by its lack of an internal IR missile. And in such a fight its stealth remains an asset. And in such a fight its fused and linked DAS and radar (along with its "contradictory" helmet system) also remain assets.

[KenV]

Ken, the F-35 RCS reduction is optimised for one band only and the aircraft does not have a credible jamming capability either.

Tell that to USAF. They insist they do not want nor need EF-18 Growlers because of the F-35s internal jamming capability. I too have my doubts but USAF has a LOT more data than I do. And I personally think the Navy is wise in having a dedicated escort jammer, which the F-35 is not.

If you don't want the bad guys to use their long-range search radars to pinpoint your F-35 package an off-board jamming capability, such as that provided by the Growlers, is rather handy.

Probably true. Yet how many dedicated escort jammers are there in the various air arms on this planet? With the EA-6 retired, the EF-18 seems to be the only Western one. So it would seem that although "handy," such a jammer aircraft is a low priority by every Western air arm except USN. The Russians have old Su-24 Fencer jammer aircraft, but I don't know how well the Russians have been able to update them to keep up with the evolving threats.

[LowObservable]

The ability to fuse DAS and radar tracks and construct a common 3D picture of the air battle, with integrity and reliability sufficient to launch missiles, would be truly impressive but has not been demonstrated. Given that DAS alone is inherently 2D, it would be quite challenging.

Yes, one can launch AMRAAM within visual range. If you were strong enough you could pick it up and hit your adversary over the head with it, for that matter. What it won't do very well is high-off-boresight at close range because it can't pull the g off the rail.

As for jamming: The limits are as JTO describes, as far as I am aware, although there is a towed or expendable system (BAE ALE-70) for use when the aircraft is carrying external stores.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by KenV

Agreed. However, although the missile does not link back its location, the launch platform can track it along with the intended target. F-35s are especially adept at tracking their own missile(s) and can even do so passively. If the missile strays and/or the target maneuvers to avoid the missile the missile can be redirected and/or never have its terminal homing guidance switched on. And I agree that even in this situation, plenty of uncertainty remains. However, the F-35s combination of sensors and sensor fusion means the probabilities go up significantly in favor of a successful shot and successful kill.

I'm sorry, that is absolutely not true. There has never been any functionality such as that. Any more than AIM120 has a thermal seeker. Your posts are not making sense to me. There is no reason whatsoever why the F-35 should be any better at supporting AIM120 than, for example F-15. The command guidance is what it is, and it doesn't matter what platform that guidance comes from. The missile doesn't "stray" unless it has malfunctioned or lost guidance - in either case nothing is going to correct that; the missile is effectively defeated.

My use of the term "uncertainty" has nothing to do with what the guy in the cockpit thinks, it's to do with the mx search parameters when it decides to go active. Uncertainty is a technical term, not an expression of not being certain about what is going on.

Two of your comments there interest me. First, why is the F-35 especially adept at tracking its own missiles and, second, how does it do that passively?

You haven't yet explained your post about the AIM-120 thermal seeker. I am curious.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by a1bill

@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 ?

Third party targeting is way beyond this domain, I'm afraid.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by KenV

The helmet, and thus the sensors and weapons, know where the "MkII eyeball" is looking and the fused and linked DAS and radar pictures (the DAS and radar pictures of ALL the F-35s in the fight) compute the range automatically. And if I may direct your memory to Vietnam, Sparrow missiles were used at "short range against a close target with a high sightline rate and manoeuvre" on many an occasion. The same thing happened later over Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the skies over and adjacent to Israel using AMRAAMs. So "close in high maneuvering" fights have not restricted the pilots to using IR missiles and using radar guided missiles is most assuredly appropriate and effective in those situations. Thus lack of an IR missile is not a deal breaker in such a fight. In short, the F-35 is most assuredly capable of fighting within visual range and is most assuredly not crippled by its lack of an internal IR missile. And in such a fight its stealth remains an asset. And in such a fight its fused and linked DAS and radar (along with its "contradictory" helmet system) also remain assets.

I know I encouraged you and a couple of others to be more respectful in posting replies, but I have to say that this is utter rubbish. With all due respect, this and your previous few posts make me doubt your grasp of air-to-air weaponry.

Your post here appears to be based upon the premise that all, or at least some, of the sensors are tracking all the targets. I'm sure your experience will have proved that is seldom the case, especially when the air situation is highly dynamic. The whole point of being able to cue weapons from the helmet is that the pilot can point at a target very much more quickly with his head than he can with any other sensor and that he can launch a relatively high success mx very quickly - essential in a close-in, highly dynamic situation.

Head tracking is very different to eyeball tracking, although that's really not relevant here because the sensor is the same either way.

Your quote about AIM 7 at close range presumably refers to dog fight mode? If your measure of ensuring acurate targeting is based on that, then I would not want You to be my wingman in an F-35 on operations.

As for "most assuredly", assured by whom?

Sorry to be a bit blunt, but your statements do not accord with weaponology.

[LowObservable]

There is no reason at all why the F-35 should be "especially adept" at tracking AIM-120Ds or other AAMs. The D model has GPS and a two-way datalink that can presumably "report back" its position, but that will work with any platform.

The idea mooted by KenV that the missile "may never have its terminal guidance switched on" is not supported by any known facts. This would require the fighter's radar to track every movement of the target, compute its location at intercept and transmit steering commands to the missile, which would then accurately navigate itself in 4D to arrive within lethal range of the target. I don't think AMRAAM has a CLOS mode.

[Mach Two]

KenV,

I believe you claim time in the F/A18C. During your time there you clearly missed out how the AIM 120 works. I am a happy AMRAAM customer and user and I can categorically state that virtually nothing you have stated here about it has the faintest echo of truth about it.

You even appear to be unclear about the difference between AIM 132 and AIM 120. I believe you would be well advised to stick to your engineering job and stay clear of a fast jet cockpit that involves modern weapons systems. Maybe you've forgotten a lot or maybe you are talking about weapons you don't understand. Either way, nearly all your statements are completelty wrong.

[O-P]

AIM 120s WVR (the old boresight) mode was called "Mad dog in a meat shop" for a very good reason! Once you let it off the leash, anything could happen and you could do nothing to stop it. Needless to say that it wasn't considered the first choice in weapon employment!