F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[a1bill]

Yes, it's always a good site to read.


A demonstration of the F-35’s new technology.


Read more: New F-35 Technology 'Radar' May Detect Objects In Sky

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by layman

F22 rather than F35 but, enough similarity to be relevant?

"I had the opportunity to fly in an opposition Red Air F‐15D fitted with a sophisticated EW jamming capability. I was looking forward to being on the mission having been on the receiving end of “Red Air” over the years. However, instead of witnessing the normal attrition of a strike package I witnessed a demonstration of the superiority of the fifth generation aircraft.

What I didn’t account for was the effect of the eight escort F‐22s. The good thing about Red Air is that you are allowed to regenerate if you suffer a simulated kill.

So what happened? Well we advanced into the airspace about 40nm and were killed with no idea who or what had caused our demise. We regenerated and the next time only advanced 20nm. We regenerated a total of 5 times and only advanced a maximum of 40nm into the airspace; such was the dramatic superiority of a 5th generation aircraft.

Post flight I was then fortunate to view the engagement from the viewpoint of the F‐22 formation. The level of situational awareness was dramatically different. The F‐22 pilots had a complete gods‐eye view of the battle space and the differences between the benchmark 4th generation aircraft and a 5th generation aircraft were quite stark. It is this situational awareness that determines who wins and who losses in the fight for control of the air."

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/Uplo...6_Jul_2012.pdf

Hmm what looks good at first falls apart when you actually rationalise what he's talking about...

[LowObservable]

Layman - very illuminating.

It's strongly illustrative of the trap that has been constructed from the 5GenTM mythology. As the author notes, he was flying in a USAF F-15D, a type that entered service at the end of the 1970s. In this scenario, the most important element of the "sophisticated EW system" was the ALR-56C RWR, a superheterodyne analog system...

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/...aes_020003.pdf

...which understandably failed to detect the LPI radar on the F-22s. The F-22 radars, meanwhile, could be power-managed to match the humungous nose-on RCS of the F-15D (a basic LPI technique), exploiting jet engine modulation to obtain positive ID.

The F-15C/Ds, meanwhile, were individually blind unless each aircraft used its radar (lacking intra-flight datalink), so there was no possibility of using a trailing element to use radar. The digital ALR-94s on the F-22s would have picked them up as soon as they transmitted.

Finally, the F-22s had height and speed to give their AIM-120s (six per jet) enough launch boost to perform high Pk launches at range, so they could exploit any advantage in detection and tracking range. The F-15C/D does not have MAWS, as far as I am aware.

So now let's equip Blue with F-35s, with max four missiles, with less range.

The adversaries have RCS reduction (probably 20 dbsm below an untreated Eagle) that denies JEM and requires the LPI radars on the F-35s to run at much higher power, which makes the signal easier to detect. Red also has digital ESM, which operates on all frequencies all the time rather than scanning like an analog superhet. LPI has suddenly become far more difficult.

Red may also have IRST. If they use radar they can hop the transmission around the formation and share the data via datalink. Red has decent sensor fusion, too.

Red has MAWS, effective DRFM jammers and auto-evasion, all of which conspire to make a high-Pk shot more difficult and (other things being equal) reduce missile range and F-pole distances.

(But in 5GenTM land, this Red force is still just "4Gen" and grouped with the old F-15s.)

And finally, if it goes wrong for the F-22s they can disengage with their superior energy maneuverability, including speed and acceleration. On the other hand...

Historical note: The F-15 Aggressor unit was deactivated last year, while F-16 Aggressors have been carrying IRST...

[WhiteOvies]

LO,

Out of curiosity which 'red' platform are you thinking of? PAK FA?

[KenV]

Ken I'm sure you are right - that it is designed to work in groups - however history tells us that you can't guarantee how you will have to fight in reality. “No Battle Plan Survives Contact With the Enemy”

No one is making any "guarantees", and may I suggest that any demands for such are absurd. Look at the data: in a 4 v 8 scenario the exchange rate is 1 to 6, and NOT 0 to 8. So no, 5th Gen does not make you an invulnerable Superman, and yes, 5th Gen operators will lose some airplanes. The idea is to make the enemy lose far more than you, it is NOT to make sure you lose none.

Further, one can design and build for the 3rd percentile worst case air-to-air scenario. F-22 did that. F-22 is even more expensive than F-35 AND it has a lousy air-to-ground capability. Once again, F-22 is optimized for air-to-air and has traded a LOT of air-to-ground capability for that stellar air-to-air performance. F-35 is optimized for air-to-ground and has traded some air-to-air performance to get it, with the idea being the F-35 pilots will avoid the low probability close-in dogfight for which they are not optimized. Industry was able (eventually) to figure out how to build a 4th Gen aircraft very good in both air-to-air and air-to-ground performance (F-15E and later, F/A-18E and later, Typhoon Block 15/FGR4 and later, Gripen NG and later, etc). But we are not yet able to build a 5th Gen aircraft stellar in both air-to-air and air-to-ground performance. May I politely state that demands for such at this time are absurd.

the other point is that I doubt many (?any?) of the non -US buyers will have the IT, networking and other sensor capability to actually form a "group" - they're planning to use the F-35 as a straight replacement for 3rd & 4th Gen aircraft

Well, if you think that every nation other than the USA is hopelessly stuck in 4th Gen thinking and 4th Gen operations, and incapable of 5th Gen operations, then I would politely suggest you think again. My opinion is that the nations that bought into the F-35 program understand the value of the 5th Gen fight and are buying into it so they can fight a 5th Gen fight, not a 4th Gen fight. Those nations that are incapable of moving into the 5th Gen world can buy (and indeed many are buying) Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, F-15, Super Hornet, Sukhoi, etc.

[LowObservable]

None specifically. J-10B would be close, as would Su-35S; and it's still four years before F-35 Block 3F is operational, and until then it's only two AMRAAMs...

[WhiteOvies]

LO,

Thanks. With the performance differences and the technological advances in both east and west I see any actual air-air combat between near-peer States being much more decisively swung by good intel and ops planning, tactics and aircrew ability.

I would hope that the OT people at Edwards and Nellis have enough intel on the capabilities of their adversaries to be able to come up with tactics that put the F-35 at an advantage. On paper a Sea Harrier FA2 should never have beat a Mig 29 or F-15C but tactics were devised to be able to make it happen during DACT sorties.

[glad rag]

Tactics are only useful until a counter tactic is devised..

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Of course, but devising a counter-tactic* that is effective, reliable and affordable is not guaranteed.

*or, more accurately, staying ahead in the continual game of tactic and counter

I recall flying a non-wonder jet against the latest wonder jet in DACT, and at the end of the third day of being told each winning cheap trick tactic we had used would never work again, our QWI said "Yes, we know that, but there are only 7 days left, and we have 9 more cheap tricks!"

[glad rag]

Of course, but devising a counter-tactic* that is effective, reliable and affordable is not guaranteed.

Not a problem in Putin’s Russia though....they start "losing"..

[NITRO104]

Originally Posted by KenV

But we are not yet able to build a 5th Gen aircraft stellar in both air-to-air and air-to-ground performance.

Fair enough, but how does that help, say, Danemark in light of recent Russian threats?
Why would they need a stealth strike aircraft, when they face a tac.nuclear threat?
Apparently, there's a strategic discrepancy between US and some other JSF partners' needs, which shouldn't be there according to the picture that has been painted over the years, where JSF was supposed to equalize or outclass partners' F16s in all aspects, including flight performance and cost.

As a consequence, Danemark is facing a smaller fleet of slower and costlier planes to protect its borders.
This doesn't make any sense and is questionable whether the time such a fleet can buy until the cavalry arrives is long enough to be a viable strategy, because whereas the F35 can hide in the EM cluster**** of a moder EW war, an AB, or a dockyard, or a city can't.
...or the US can keep an F22 wing in Danemark, but then there's Norway and Netherlands and ...

[WhiteOvies]

Nitro,

Given that Denmark have an F-16 at Edwards supporting the F-35A Integrated Test Force and the Danish military are represented at the F-35 Joint Programme Office I would suggest that the Danish Defense Officials have a good view on the true capabilities between the two aircraft.

The Russian rhetoric is just that and is a diplomatic issue. The NATO Baltic Air Policing mission should detect and track the bad guys well before they enter Danish airspace. An F-35 equipped Danish Air Force ups the potency of this mission significantly, for which I am sure the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians will be very grateful.

I would suggest that the US has not put F-22s into the Baltic Policing Mission due to the increased implied threat to Russia this would cause. Whether the Baltics would wish for this level of deterrence is another matter.

Wheter F-35 is the right aircraft for Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands? Maybe the Industrial share and integration into the project for each country makes the expense worthwhile? As I recall the F-35C hook system is designed by a Dutch company, Kongsberg are involved in the F-35 wepaons system for integration of the NSM etc. I have not seen any interviews with the Dutch F-35 pilots yet or the Danes involved, their opinion would be interesting. For the UK economy we actually make more money from F-35 than the MOD is spending to buy our aircraft so the investment is worth it.

[ORAC]

The Russian rhetoric is just that and is a diplomatic issue.

Honour the threat, the ones you don't tend to be real.

[NITRO104]

Given that Denmark have an F-16 at Edwards supporting the F-35A Integrated Test Force and the Danish military are represented at the F-35 Joint Programme Office I would suggest that the Danish Defense Officials have a good view on the true capabilities between the two aircraft.

Yes, but how can they leave now many years into the project, even if they wanted to?
I'm not a politician, but I imagine it's not that easy to do a U-turn, after advocating one thing for so long.
Also, Danes were/are contemplating a new tender, but I'm not sure in what phase that project currently is.

The Russian rhetoric is just that and is a diplomatic issue.

I agree and Russian tycoons live too good only to jeopardize that with another war so it's probably just empty chatter, but then again IMO one should prepare for the worst, if he's already determined to keep the defense capability and is paying a big buck for it.

Obviously, I'm not privy to JSF's combat capabilities, so my comments on this particular issue are made on academic level and public data only, but smaller number of slower fighters can't be a good thing vs a supersonic bombers, CMs, TBMs, etc. Remember what plane had the most success in dealing with V1 over UK, 70 years ago and it wasn't particularly sophisticated, but was powerful and fast.

[WhiteOvies]

I don't think the Danes will pull out unless finances absolutely dictate it. As you say, a lot of political effort is invested and any re-competition at this stage would cause a significant capability gap or additional cost of running on/upgrading F-16.

Of course the UK took the gap option when money ran out so it's not unheard of!

[KenV]

Fair enough, but how does that help, say, Danemark in light of recent Russian threats?
Why would they need a stealth strike aircraft, when they face a tac.nuclear threat?

If they truly face a nuke threat, no fighter is going to make much of a difference. Basically, the only defense against any nuclear threat is certain nuclear retaliation. The Danes would need to become a nuclear power with their own nuclear deterrence. If so a stealthy jet would make an excellent delivery platform. Their other option is to rely on an alliance partner (perhaps like NATO) to provide the deterrence. Perhaps with a stealthy jet delivery platform.

JSF was supposed to equalize or outclass partners' F16s in all aspects, including flight performance and cost.

Is the ability to "outclass" F-16 in a close-in dogfight a KPP, or an assumption? As a reminder, previous posts in this thread have made very clear the F-35 kinematic performance was NOT a KPP.

As for cost, you have to look at total cost to the nation. Plenty of Dane companies are doing work on, and making money on, and employing workers on, the F-35 program. In the overall scheme of things, the Danes may be coming out ahead finance wise.

[sandiego89]

just a pax: This is my first post so please be gentle.

Isn't that why Gen. Mike Hostage for example is talking about the need to have the F-35s hunt in packs of eight?

Do they lack the ability or are less capable to proper self defence, and not able to get out of the situation as other aircrafts are?
If so this raises a lot of other questions. Not only for the US but for all those partners and countries that do not have the financial prerequisites to buy them in large quantities.


“Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Or is it just a way of trying to keep the fleet from any numerical cuts?

Just a Pax, think you are reading too much into the Generals statment in the linked article. He was comparing the capabilty of the F-22 to the F-35 in the air superiority realm, which he admits is not the main F-35 mission. The F-22 has superior range/endurance, missle load out and sensor capabilty for the air to air mission- everyone recognizes this. You would need 8 F-35s to do a comparable air superiority mission that 2 F-22's could do, not really a plan to "hunt in packs of eight."

Yes part of it is to get more aircraft.

He expands: "....The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

I would say it is more of a statement on the impressive capabilties of the F-22, and the need to fully fund the F-35A fleet.

[NITRO104]

Originally Posted by KenV

Is the ability to "outclass" F-16 in a close-in dogfight a KPP, or an assumption?

Neither, it's a selling point LM used to sell JSF to partners and around the world.

[KenV]

Neither, it's a selling point LM used to sell JSF to partners and around the world.

Is that documented, or an assumption? So far the documentation provided that LM made such claims to "sell JSF to partners" has shown them making no such claims.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by WhiteOvies

I don't think the Danes will pull out unless finances absolutely dictate it.

Reminds me of a date long ago, when I could not afford to have a kid ...

I'd like to address the Russian Threat rhetoric.

This news inspired bit of the sky falling regarding "Russians make a nuclear threat versus Denmark" is a bit of hyperbole, to say the least.

Two reasons for that:

1. Of all the places to expend nukes, it's a low payoff target.
2. Article V.

As to the time lag between Denmark's threat assessment that led to "buy some F-35's" and now, that's a few years shy of 20 years, right?

Stuff changes over time.