F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
KenV,
I am not sure why you think that the Phoenix is such a great missile and should have been retained? Yes, you could fire it at great range but it was VERY slow. I understand that if fired at long range and the Tomcat then followed in and fired an AIM7 at 8 miles, the AIM7 got to the target first? OK for fleet defense 30 years ago but not a missile for the 2020s?
I am not sure why you think that the Phoenix is such a great missile and should have been retained? Yes, you could fire it at great range but it was VERY slow. I understand that if fired at long range and the Tomcat then followed in and fired an AIM7 at 8 miles, the AIM7 got to the target first? OK for fleet defense 30 years ago but not a missile for the 2020s?
Ignoring the stealth bit but it was quite an exaggeration to suggest that the F-35 with (in the future) 4 x AIM-120 was ever going to out perform a Typhoon with say 2 x AIM-132 and 4 x AIM-120. Even if you added more fuel and a couple more missiles it would leave an F-35 in the dust.
The first rule of all air combat is to see the opponent first.
This makes sense: see him first and begin to dictate the terms of the engagement? Seeing has become a multi sensor activity, which includes many sensors as well as the Mk I Mod 0 eyeball." The whole "stealth" sales point supports seeing first ...
At the esoteric level, this is the principle of war called "Initiative" but on the more practical level it's the first step (Observe) in Boyd's infamous OODA loop. You get inside of his decision cycle by starting the engagement before he sees you with any sensor.
(Long ago memory of a picture in a squadron office ... what two MiG 21's looked like from a mile away, head on ... two little black dots on the picture ... )
How stealthy is stealth? Well, there's a can of worms to open ...
What if both sides are "stealthy" eh?
How stealthy is your stealth, today?
More cans, more worms, and now we get to some very interesting problems in getting the drop on one's opponents ... does that mean stealth is moot, or just another factor or measure of effectiveness?
The rest of the Galland quote ....
Like the hunter who stalks his prey and maneuvers himself unnoticed into the most favourable position for the kill, the fighter in the opening of a dogfight must detect the opponent as early as possible in order to attain a superior position for the attack.
See also:
One of the secrets of air fighting was to see the other man first.
— Air Vice-Marshal J. E. 'Johnnie' Johnson, RAF.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th Aug 2015 at 20:37.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The name of the game surely hasn't changed since Adolf Galland made his remarks.
If you see first, you can shoot first.
Today that requires that you have armament that can reach the opponent at the moment of first sight.
In the past it was said that the F-22 could detect a Typhoon far earlier and had missiles with greater range.
I assume the F-35 would have had similar capability.
Surely the ability to see first and reach the target trumps in close dogfighting which is extremely rare. It has been said on this thread that if you allow yourself to get into a gunfight, you weren't doing your job in the first place.
So one wonders about the usefulness of stealth - is it worth the cost? Surely more advanced sensors and air-to-air missiles can carry the day? After all, the object of the exercise hasn't changed since WW I it isn't to engage in heroic one-to-one combat, it is to prevent enemy aircraft from attacking ones own ground assets. If the strike aircraft can detect at greater range and fire at greater range, it doesn't need to be a first class dogfighter.
If you see first, you can shoot first.
Today that requires that you have armament that can reach the opponent at the moment of first sight.
In the past it was said that the F-22 could detect a Typhoon far earlier and had missiles with greater range.
I assume the F-35 would have had similar capability.
Surely the ability to see first and reach the target trumps in close dogfighting which is extremely rare. It has been said on this thread that if you allow yourself to get into a gunfight, you weren't doing your job in the first place.
So one wonders about the usefulness of stealth - is it worth the cost? Surely more advanced sensors and air-to-air missiles can carry the day? After all, the object of the exercise hasn't changed since WW I it isn't to engage in heroic one-to-one combat, it is to prevent enemy aircraft from attacking ones own ground assets. If the strike aircraft can detect at greater range and fire at greater range, it doesn't need to be a first class dogfighter.
Royalistflyer,
I'm confused
I'm sure I've missed something there, but you seem to have answered your own question. If your premis is If you see first, you can shoot first, that is the point of stealth - to stop the bad guys seeing you first, if at all. If stealth achieves that, then yes it is worth it. Even if the enemy has a bigger stick it's no use to him if he can't use it.
As for close combat, you are right that it isn't a place you ever want to be in a real shooting war, even if your aircraft is really good at manoeuvring. You may win the close fight, but while you're doing it you are very vulnerable to his mates and so you want to kill the enemy at range or run away before it's too late.
That said, you may not always be able to avoid the merge and if that happens you better be able to fight WVR (and have weapons left). Clearly if you have good HOBS and enough weapons, manoeuvre isn't everything, but its importance does not go away. At that stage, stealth becomes less significant, but again its importance does not go away. All the above is what makes F-22 (for example) so effective - good stealth, good manoeuvrability and plenty of weapons.
As I have said many times before, the same agility (turn, accel and altitude) is also important pre-merge both for chucking your spears further and for making the other guy's work harder.
If your point is that good enemy sensors could defeat your stealth then, yes, you are exactly right. But he needs to have an effective way of doing that, which may rely on external systems and, therefore, significantly complicate his situation and create other vulnerabilities to attack.
I'm confused
I'm sure I've missed something there, but you seem to have answered your own question. If your premis is If you see first, you can shoot first, that is the point of stealth - to stop the bad guys seeing you first, if at all. If stealth achieves that, then yes it is worth it. Even if the enemy has a bigger stick it's no use to him if he can't use it.
As for close combat, you are right that it isn't a place you ever want to be in a real shooting war, even if your aircraft is really good at manoeuvring. You may win the close fight, but while you're doing it you are very vulnerable to his mates and so you want to kill the enemy at range or run away before it's too late.
That said, you may not always be able to avoid the merge and if that happens you better be able to fight WVR (and have weapons left). Clearly if you have good HOBS and enough weapons, manoeuvre isn't everything, but its importance does not go away. At that stage, stealth becomes less significant, but again its importance does not go away. All the above is what makes F-22 (for example) so effective - good stealth, good manoeuvrability and plenty of weapons.
As I have said many times before, the same agility (turn, accel and altitude) is also important pre-merge both for chucking your spears further and for making the other guy's work harder.
If your point is that good enemy sensors could defeat your stealth then, yes, you are exactly right. But he needs to have an effective way of doing that, which may rely on external systems and, therefore, significantly complicate his situation and create other vulnerabilities to attack.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royalistflyer,
Which is all good and well if you are considering that both forces are airborne and hurtling towards each other at altitude. "I'm a stealthy Gen 5, I'll see him first..
There are a thousand scenarios where this may not be the case. WVR combat is as necessary as BVR. This thing needs a redesignation to A-35 tbh.
p.s CM beat me to it
Which is all good and well if you are considering that both forces are airborne and hurtling towards each other at altitude. "I'm a stealthy Gen 5, I'll see him first..
There are a thousand scenarios where this may not be the case. WVR combat is as necessary as BVR. This thing needs a redesignation to A-35 tbh.
p.s CM beat me to it
Humpy,
If you want to rename in such a fashion, you still can't lose the "F" even if that just refers to a pretty effective self-escort capability. After procuring AIM-120, the first time we stuck even just a couple of guys toting slammers into a bomber package, Red Air had to completely change its game plan and the results were very different from sending in just a bunch of bombers. That difference is amplified many times if Red can't even see them at range and the whole package can shoot. Ah, happy days of low level COMAO!
The same would be true (hopefully for the RN) using F-35 as fleet defence. It may not be the best fighter in the world (no, I'm not getting into that argument at the moment), but having it there with A-A mx as a hard to see part of an integrated AD system is still going to make a very big difference. Dare I say it, better than Sea Harrier and infinitely better than the thing that followed it, i.e. nothing.
So, if you really feel strongly about it, F/A-35 might be more appropriate.
If you want to rename in such a fashion, you still can't lose the "F" even if that just refers to a pretty effective self-escort capability. After procuring AIM-120, the first time we stuck even just a couple of guys toting slammers into a bomber package, Red Air had to completely change its game plan and the results were very different from sending in just a bunch of bombers. That difference is amplified many times if Red can't even see them at range and the whole package can shoot. Ah, happy days of low level COMAO!
The same would be true (hopefully for the RN) using F-35 as fleet defence. It may not be the best fighter in the world (no, I'm not getting into that argument at the moment), but having it there with A-A mx as a hard to see part of an integrated AD system is still going to make a very big difference. Dare I say it, better than Sea Harrier and infinitely better than the thing that followed it, i.e. nothing.
So, if you really feel strongly about it, F/A-35 might be more appropriate.
OMG! My previous post just made me realise THE WORST THING ABOUT F-35. And this is seriously bad.
All this stealth and stuff means that our packages will no longer be forced to low level! Imagine spending all your airborne time being a medium level bomber! No more Death Star Valley or Mach Loop! Unthinkable! Still, the Welsh will be happy.
All this stealth and stuff means that our packages will no longer be forced to low level! Imagine spending all your airborne time being a medium level bomber! No more Death Star Valley or Mach Loop! Unthinkable! Still, the Welsh will be happy.
Hempy,
Remember the old USAF doctrine is that anything that isn't Bomber is a Fighter. (e.g. F105, F-111). There are some old soaks at the bar that still think the A-10 should have had an 'F' designation.
Courtney,
Isn't that what the mud movers have spent the last 25 years on operations doing? :-)
Remember the old USAF doctrine is that anything that isn't Bomber is a Fighter. (e.g. F105, F-111). There are some old soaks at the bar that still think the A-10 should have had an 'F' designation.
Courtney,
Isn't that what the mud movers have spent the last 25 years on operations doing? :-)
ism.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV, I am not sure why you think that the Phoenix is such a great missile and should have been retained? Yes, you could fire it at great range but it was VERY slow. I understand that if fired at long range and the Tomcat then followed in and fired an AIM7 at 8 miles, the AIM7 got to the target first?
OK for fleet defense 30 years ago but not a missile for the 2020s?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a thousand scenarios where this may not be the case. WVR combat is as necessary as BVR. This thing needs a redesignation to A-35 tbh.
On F-35 the decision was to compromise air-to-air in favor of air-to-ground. That being said, which air-to-air regime should they compromise, BVR or WVR? The decision was to compromise the least probable air-to-air regime, which was WVR.
As for the redesignation to A-35, as long as USAF controls the program, that will never happen. USAF has a long and proud history of avoiding the "A" designation. At best it would become F/A-35. For a short while the F-22 was F/A-22, so there is a small bit of history there.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this stealth and stuff means that our packages will no longer be forced to low level! Imagine spending all your airborne time being a medium level bomber! No more Death Star Valley or Mach Loop! Unthinkable! Still, the Welsh will be happy.
Last edited by KenV; 7th Aug 2015 at 13:46.
The Phoenix climbed to 80,000 to 100,000 ft and then cruised there at around Mach 5. I personally don't see that as slow. And once in the terminal area it dived down to increase its speed for the final intercept.
No more Death Star Valley or Mach Loop! Unthinkable! Still, the Welsh will be happy
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that really true Ken (a genuine question)? Mach 5 is where hypersonic officially begins, and I've never heard the Phoenix being classed as a hypersonic weapon before.
When an AIM-54A is launched, its Rocketdyne MK 47 or Aerojet MK 60 solid-fueled rocket motor (in an MXU-637/B propulsion section) propels it to a speed of Mach 4+.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix
The Phoenix has several guidance modes and achieves its longest range by using mid-course updates from the F-14A/B AWG-9 radar (APG-71 radar in the F-14D) as it climbs to cruise between 80,000 ft (24,000 m) and 100,000 ft (30,000 m) at close to Mach 5. Phoenix uses this high altitude to gain gravitational potential energy, which is later converted into kinetic energy as the missile dives at high velocity towards its target.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
//Cue uncontrollable laughter in Russian
