F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, the F-35 is not an F-22. The F-35 is very similar to the F-16 when both are loaded for similar range and payload. The nature of LO means you have to carry everything internal, so your ability to jettison and bug out is reduced. It's just the nature of the beast.
By no means is the F-35 a BFM monster. But is it good enough? All the discussion of China and Russia all seem like WW3 discussions to me. I think the west will be challenged more by surface to air threats in the future as crappy little countries buy advanced SAMs. Let's face it, maintaining a credible air to air threat is stupid expensive, buying SAMs is way cheaper.
By no means is the F-35 a BFM monster. But is it good enough? All the discussion of China and Russia all seem like WW3 discussions to me. I think the west will be challenged more by surface to air threats in the future as crappy little countries buy advanced SAMs. Let's face it, maintaining a credible air to air threat is stupid expensive, buying SAMs is way cheaper.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by busdriver02
The F-35 is very similar to the F-16 when both are loaded for similar range and payload.
An F-35A has a MTOW about 60% more than that of an F-16C, it also carries almost double the payload, has almost double the combat radius (on internal fuel alone), and has a several orders of magnitude lower RCS.
If you could load an F-35A to a similar fuel and loadout config as a maxxed out F-16C (which at about 45Klbs is probably impossible), it would eat the Viper for dinner and be back for cocktails and medals soon after!
Otherwise, nailed it!
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The author of the piece posted a clarification on a well-known F-35 fan site - but not a retraction of his statements - basically saying the pilots will learn how the fight the F-35.
I also know that, until the general public start reading about how the jet fares in live training and combat missions, the F-35 will continue to polarise peoples' views. So be it. Perhaps we can start calling the thread, "F-35 not cancelled, so what?"
For what it's worth, busdriver02 is on the money IMHO.
I vote yes on that one.
Indeed.
Also: Radix seems to be on the money, for the moment.
The F-35 needs to be called by a nickname, just as the Fighting Falcon was called the Viper.
I say we use a NATO designation.
F-35 ... Foreplay.
(Why? CSN, that's why!)
It's been a long time coming
For what it's worth, busdriver02 is on the money IMHO.
Let's face it, maintaining a credible air to air threat is stupid expensive, buying SAMs is way cheaper.
Also: Radix seems to be on the money, for the moment.
The F-35 needs to be called by a nickname, just as the Fighting Falcon was called the Viper.
I say we use a NATO designation.
F-35 ... Foreplay.
(Why? CSN, that's why!)
It's been a long time coming
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then, how does the jet fare in live training missions? Any data yet?
I can say that those who are flying Operational Test and Evaluation will hold no punches in their assessments. Indeed, the feedback over the years at various OT EXCOMs from COMOPTEVFOR etc have swung from laudatory to scathing, depending on which area is being reported.
MSOCS - The high level of classification is part of the problem from both sides. The skeptics say that it prevents open discussion (and indeed prevents discussion at less-than-high class levels). The proponents complain that the skeptics are ill-informed (but insist that they be kept that way).
What we do all know is that the effectiveness of RCS reduction and LPI-LPD are parameters that have a colossal influence on force-on-force simulations. Turn those up to 11 and, yes, you'll be 400 or 600 per cent better in air-to-air than a Su-35 and eight times more effective than most things at ground attack.
Dial them back to 5 (for instance, assume some VHF detect/track and that you won't be able to achieve a high-Pk AMRAAM launch in conditions of total surprise) and the results will be different. If detection is mutual before weapon launch, then the old-skool metrics return to play.
With the same more modest assumptions, and dealing with an IADS (Busdriver), the comparison to a "legacy jet" (actually a modern aircraft using a combo of modest RCS reduction, high-end EW, SEAD/DEAD and standoff) is also different.
As for F-16 comparisons - it might be worth remembering that the F-16 IOC was around 40 years before the F-35 and the Hurricane was about 40 years before the F-16. So even if you get your numbers half right (which those cited above are not) the comparison has little validity,
What we do all know is that the effectiveness of RCS reduction and LPI-LPD are parameters that have a colossal influence on force-on-force simulations. Turn those up to 11 and, yes, you'll be 400 or 600 per cent better in air-to-air than a Su-35 and eight times more effective than most things at ground attack.
Dial them back to 5 (for instance, assume some VHF detect/track and that you won't be able to achieve a high-Pk AMRAAM launch in conditions of total surprise) and the results will be different. If detection is mutual before weapon launch, then the old-skool metrics return to play.
With the same more modest assumptions, and dealing with an IADS (Busdriver), the comparison to a "legacy jet" (actually a modern aircraft using a combo of modest RCS reduction, high-end EW, SEAD/DEAD and standoff) is also different.
As for F-16 comparisons - it might be worth remembering that the F-16 IOC was around 40 years before the F-35 and the Hurricane was about 40 years before the F-16. So even if you get your numbers half right (which those cited above are not) the comparison has little validity,
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radix, snarky much? Cheers! Of course the answer is that it isn't doing much of **** yet. The five years of "progress hiatus" is more than a bit depressing.
LO, Foreplay doesn't really cover it, more like Tease.
The thing is, all that stuff is classified for a reason. Furthermore you can't expect the same advancement in aerodynamics from the Hurricane to the Block 10 Viper. Hell just look at the advancement from the B-29 to the B-52. There is a difference between development when something is completely new, to once a technology is mature.
I'm not sure which specs you're doubting. But you can do the math yourself as far as wing loading and acceleration times and compare to the F-16C/D, or you can go here: Not My Website if you don't trust his math somewhere in there is a link to an F-16C/D performance charts. If your point of comparison is a clean block 52 with half internal fuel, gun and only 2x wingtip missiles, then no an F-35 can't hope to compete at BFM.
If you actually loaded them up and told a more reasonable story, they're very similar. Something more like full internal fuel (plus 2x wing tanks for the F-16) and 4x A-A missiles. At fight start the F-16 gets to drop it's tanks, but it's still full internal fuel since it's been feeding off the drops, the F-35 has burned off 5k pounds, the same fuel in 2x 370 gallon tanks. That results in 96lbs/sqft for the F-35 and 91lbs/sqft for the F-16, so pretty similar. If the mod to carry 6x AIM-120s ever happens that disparity shrinks. All that is Wikipedia numbers so take with a grain or two of salt.
As far as your IADS point, all of that high end EW and SEAD is much more effective with an LO platform. Standoff jammers can standoff a lot further if the jets going into the MEZ are LO and a big part of the problem being addressed is a MEZ that is much deeper than in the past.
I don't know how much you guys know about LO design but if you haven't read it, I recommend "The Radar Game" it's not all telling, but it does start to explain that "stealth" isn't about being invisible, but rather managing your signature in a predictable way.
There is no doubt that advanced electronic protection and RCS reduction measures that don't go all the way to internal carriage, would be better than legacy systems and wouldn't suffer the drag penalty of an LO platform the size of the F-35. I'm assuming you're referring to the Super Hornet here, which is somewhat amusing since that platform is notoriously draggy and bleeds energy with it's non-jettisonable pylons installed. And based on test reports the F-35 problems with drag are due to transonic wave drag not canted pylons and it actually accelerates very fast in the subsonic regime.
But at the end of the day all designs are compromises, in this case a decision was made to accept kinematics similar to legacy jets. In all fairness I'm guessing the F-35 is somewhere between an F-16 and F-18. In exchange it gets LO. At this point in the process, it's all the fancy avionics (software) that are really the test burden. After that it's a matter of integrating an insane number of weapons.
Is the F-35 perfect? No ******* way. But it's a far cry from the hand wringing, spittle flying, worst thing the military has ever bought abortion that APA would have people believe.
LO, Foreplay doesn't really cover it, more like Tease.
The thing is, all that stuff is classified for a reason. Furthermore you can't expect the same advancement in aerodynamics from the Hurricane to the Block 10 Viper. Hell just look at the advancement from the B-29 to the B-52. There is a difference between development when something is completely new, to once a technology is mature.
I'm not sure which specs you're doubting. But you can do the math yourself as far as wing loading and acceleration times and compare to the F-16C/D, or you can go here: Not My Website if you don't trust his math somewhere in there is a link to an F-16C/D performance charts. If your point of comparison is a clean block 52 with half internal fuel, gun and only 2x wingtip missiles, then no an F-35 can't hope to compete at BFM.
If you actually loaded them up and told a more reasonable story, they're very similar. Something more like full internal fuel (plus 2x wing tanks for the F-16) and 4x A-A missiles. At fight start the F-16 gets to drop it's tanks, but it's still full internal fuel since it's been feeding off the drops, the F-35 has burned off 5k pounds, the same fuel in 2x 370 gallon tanks. That results in 96lbs/sqft for the F-35 and 91lbs/sqft for the F-16, so pretty similar. If the mod to carry 6x AIM-120s ever happens that disparity shrinks. All that is Wikipedia numbers so take with a grain or two of salt.
As far as your IADS point, all of that high end EW and SEAD is much more effective with an LO platform. Standoff jammers can standoff a lot further if the jets going into the MEZ are LO and a big part of the problem being addressed is a MEZ that is much deeper than in the past.
I don't know how much you guys know about LO design but if you haven't read it, I recommend "The Radar Game" it's not all telling, but it does start to explain that "stealth" isn't about being invisible, but rather managing your signature in a predictable way.
There is no doubt that advanced electronic protection and RCS reduction measures that don't go all the way to internal carriage, would be better than legacy systems and wouldn't suffer the drag penalty of an LO platform the size of the F-35. I'm assuming you're referring to the Super Hornet here, which is somewhat amusing since that platform is notoriously draggy and bleeds energy with it's non-jettisonable pylons installed. And based on test reports the F-35 problems with drag are due to transonic wave drag not canted pylons and it actually accelerates very fast in the subsonic regime.
But at the end of the day all designs are compromises, in this case a decision was made to accept kinematics similar to legacy jets. In all fairness I'm guessing the F-35 is somewhere between an F-16 and F-18. In exchange it gets LO. At this point in the process, it's all the fancy avionics (software) that are really the test burden. After that it's a matter of integrating an insane number of weapons.
Is the F-35 perfect? No ******* way. But it's a far cry from the hand wringing, spittle flying, worst thing the military has ever bought abortion that APA would have people believe.
But at the end of the day all designs are compromises, in this case a decision was made to accept kinematics similar to legacy jets. In all fairness I'm guessing the F-35 is somewhere between an F-16 and F-18. In exchange it gets LO. At this point in the process, it's all the fancy avionics (software) that are really the test burden.
After that it's a matter of integrating an insane number of weapons.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more serious kvetch about all that, to include all of that software, is how much it costs per unit.
X>Y>Z. What are these figures? I don't care! I'm from the camp that says the value of anything is what you're prepared to pay for it.
If you view the F-35 through a cynical and hateful lens of doom then I understand your pain as you seemingly witness billions of tax dollars burn in front of your weeping eyes with nothing to show for it at this stage (other than jets coming off a production line and being tested....)
However, if you truly understand and appreciate the benefits F-35 will deliver, particularly if your country has a stake in its manufacture, you can rejoice in knowing that every tax dollar spent brings jobs, experience and an investment return for each aircraft made.
The exact cost isn't terribly easy to quote - that said, it is cheaper per unit than a B-2 or F-22 and I believe it to be comparable to Eurofighter.
Is the F-35 a "good deal" as a jobs and skills investment for any country other than the US? e.g. compared to the Eurofighter?
Busdriver - Fanx. Helpful response.
The site you link to is the work of a perpetually cranky individual who has a tendency to mangle data. My own assessment (plus the odd bit of data along the way) is that the F-35A will accelerate quite quickly at subsonic speeds (and will outrun a lot of things if two 2K bombs are carried) but starts to run into the wall transonic and above, whether heavy or light. The culprit is a forebody that has to accommodate a regional jet engine standing on its end.
As for maneuver: I'm very wary of any calculations involving wing loading because the F-35A's ratio of net-to-gross wing area is off the charts. That's to say, the actual wings are much smaller than the 460 ft2 nominal (gross) area because the body is so wide. Nor is the front end particularly well shaped to develop lift efficiently.
This seems to have been a deliberate design trade: The F-35C has a much bigger wing to make its CV approach speed and isn't about to win drag races.
As far as your IADS point, all of that high end EW and SEAD is much more effective with an LO platform. Standoff jammers can standoff a lot further if the jets going into the MEZ are LO and a big part of the problem being addressed is a MEZ that is much deeper than in the past.
That's quite correct. But two points: The Radar Game, with which I am familiar, misses the relationship between RCS and burn-through range (where reflection = jamming power) which is nicely synergistic. When the F-22/35 LO technology got started, however, the US had a horrible history with automated EW and didn't remotely want to think about going that way. The Euros persisted and if you ask the French, moderate RCS reduction + jamming + standoff is a good balance.
The second point is that if you really want to exploit stealth and take the platform into the red zone, and you've already sacrificed much of the kinematics, maybe you should go all the way into all-aspect and wideband. The Radar Game doesn't mention this either, but this is the Neuron/Taranis/X-47 route.
If I was buying an AF I'd go for JAS 39Es and cruise missiles and use the spare cash for a few UCAVs. Because, pace MSOCS, the money spent on one thing cannot be spent on another.
The site you link to is the work of a perpetually cranky individual who has a tendency to mangle data. My own assessment (plus the odd bit of data along the way) is that the F-35A will accelerate quite quickly at subsonic speeds (and will outrun a lot of things if two 2K bombs are carried) but starts to run into the wall transonic and above, whether heavy or light. The culprit is a forebody that has to accommodate a regional jet engine standing on its end.
As for maneuver: I'm very wary of any calculations involving wing loading because the F-35A's ratio of net-to-gross wing area is off the charts. That's to say, the actual wings are much smaller than the 460 ft2 nominal (gross) area because the body is so wide. Nor is the front end particularly well shaped to develop lift efficiently.
This seems to have been a deliberate design trade: The F-35C has a much bigger wing to make its CV approach speed and isn't about to win drag races.
As far as your IADS point, all of that high end EW and SEAD is much more effective with an LO platform. Standoff jammers can standoff a lot further if the jets going into the MEZ are LO and a big part of the problem being addressed is a MEZ that is much deeper than in the past.
That's quite correct. But two points: The Radar Game, with which I am familiar, misses the relationship between RCS and burn-through range (where reflection = jamming power) which is nicely synergistic. When the F-22/35 LO technology got started, however, the US had a horrible history with automated EW and didn't remotely want to think about going that way. The Euros persisted and if you ask the French, moderate RCS reduction + jamming + standoff is a good balance.
The second point is that if you really want to exploit stealth and take the platform into the red zone, and you've already sacrificed much of the kinematics, maybe you should go all the way into all-aspect and wideband. The Radar Game doesn't mention this either, but this is the Neuron/Taranis/X-47 route.
If I was buying an AF I'd go for JAS 39Es and cruise missiles and use the spare cash for a few UCAVs. Because, pace MSOCS, the money spent on one thing cannot be spent on another.
Last edited by LowObservable; 6th Mar 2015 at 16:19.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, I don't think the lifting fan has as much of an impact on the non-B variants as you seem to imply. It certainly affects the B however. I think it has more to do with the requirement to internally carry a mk84 bomb body as well as an AIM-120 in the same bay. The bay ends up almost the same height as that big ass engine. But I think your first paragraph is generally on point.
I won't argue about that individual's crankiness, and he certainly misses the mark on why transonic acceleration is important but what part of his cocktail napkin math is off the mark in this case?
As far as the impact of body shaping and net vs gross wing area, I suspect that might have had a hand in the reduced sustained G spec. In other words, I suspect that it has a corner velocity commensurate with its "460ft^2" wing area and more modern airfoils, but that inefficient body lift shape (to paraphrase your words) means it'll bleed energy like a big dog. Ironically, in some respects that sounds a lot like the MIG-21 just with a 9g vs 7g limit and delta wing induced drag at fault vs inefficient body lift.
As to Radar Game: I really meant to introduce that for the masses. In as much as most people don't realize LO design isn't as simple as "make the RCS as small as possible." It's certainly simplistic, but does help those who still thing stealth is about being invisible.
As far as burn through and J/S ratios, my point was that a Growler could standoff much further and still provide support to an F-35 than it could from an F-16 for example. As far as self defense jamming, an LO platform will have a shorter burn through range than a non LO platform. As to EW advancement, the US all but abandoned EW with the push to LO. I think it's starting to come back to the table. We're starting to realize LO is not the panacea we thought it would be, and I hope EW
I don't think the F-35 has sacrificed "much of the kinematics" at least relative to what we currently have unless you toss the F-22 into the comparison. It's certainly not a clean F-16, but I think it's probably on par with a legacy fighter that has a bunch of missiles on the rail and dumped it's bombs and tanks but kept that rails.
The issue I have with standoff weapons is the time of flight. Short standoff is one thing, but longer range cruise missile are a different ballgame. If you're trying to hit a target that can pack up and move in 10 minutes, a 20 minute TOF is a problem; and yes I made up both of those numbers.
As far as the idea that reduced RCS+jamming+standoff weapons+UCAVs would an acceptable compromise versus the gold plated whole hog; well that probably goes to what the individual country desires as far as strategic objectives and what constitutes acceptable losses.
To end, LO I appreciate a level headed discussion that doesn't include hand wringing and foaming at the mouth about how much of a smelly pile of dung the F-35 may or may not be.
I won't argue about that individual's crankiness, and he certainly misses the mark on why transonic acceleration is important but what part of his cocktail napkin math is off the mark in this case?
As far as the impact of body shaping and net vs gross wing area, I suspect that might have had a hand in the reduced sustained G spec. In other words, I suspect that it has a corner velocity commensurate with its "460ft^2" wing area and more modern airfoils, but that inefficient body lift shape (to paraphrase your words) means it'll bleed energy like a big dog. Ironically, in some respects that sounds a lot like the MIG-21 just with a 9g vs 7g limit and delta wing induced drag at fault vs inefficient body lift.
As to Radar Game: I really meant to introduce that for the masses. In as much as most people don't realize LO design isn't as simple as "make the RCS as small as possible." It's certainly simplistic, but does help those who still thing stealth is about being invisible.
As far as burn through and J/S ratios, my point was that a Growler could standoff much further and still provide support to an F-35 than it could from an F-16 for example. As far as self defense jamming, an LO platform will have a shorter burn through range than a non LO platform. As to EW advancement, the US all but abandoned EW with the push to LO. I think it's starting to come back to the table. We're starting to realize LO is not the panacea we thought it would be, and I hope EW
I don't think the F-35 has sacrificed "much of the kinematics" at least relative to what we currently have unless you toss the F-22 into the comparison. It's certainly not a clean F-16, but I think it's probably on par with a legacy fighter that has a bunch of missiles on the rail and dumped it's bombs and tanks but kept that rails.
The issue I have with standoff weapons is the time of flight. Short standoff is one thing, but longer range cruise missile are a different ballgame. If you're trying to hit a target that can pack up and move in 10 minutes, a 20 minute TOF is a problem; and yes I made up both of those numbers.
As far as the idea that reduced RCS+jamming+standoff weapons+UCAVs would an acceptable compromise versus the gold plated whole hog; well that probably goes to what the individual country desires as far as strategic objectives and what constitutes acceptable losses.
To end, LO I appreciate a level headed discussion that doesn't include hand wringing and foaming at the mouth about how much of a smelly pile of dung the F-35 may or may not be.
By the way, what I really like about the combo of conventional fighter + cruise missile and UCAV is that it gives the defender three things to worry about: jamming, extreme low observables and extreme low altitude. Rather like the Aurora/Quartz combo but on a different scale.
The UCAV addresses the time-of-flight issue: Look at Neuron's sensors and planned test program and you can see where it's headed.
And before anyone complains about the cost of three systems: CMs have ICBM economics. You buy them and keep them in a bunker, fire one per year to see that it works and to validate S/W loads. UCAVs likewise fly minimally - put an appropriate pod on a Hawk for exercises.
The UCAV addresses the time-of-flight issue: Look at Neuron's sensors and planned test program and you can see where it's headed.
And before anyone complains about the cost of three systems: CMs have ICBM economics. You buy them and keep them in a bunker, fire one per year to see that it works and to validate S/W loads. UCAVs likewise fly minimally - put an appropriate pod on a Hawk for exercises.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd rather use two cruise missiles and stay hidden. I think the future will definitely be in ucavs of some sort. I just think it's further in the future than some think. The control link is still too vulnerable.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by busdriver02
As far as your IADS point, all of that high end EW and SEAD is much more effective with an LO platform. Standoff jammers can standoff a lot further if the jets going into the MEZ are LO and a big part of the problem being addressed is a MEZ that is much deeper than in the past.
Sure, stealth provides some fighting comfort, but is it worth it in comparison to what the 'legacy' fleet can do with even fraction on money in terms of upgrades and procurement?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree with your assessment, but what makes you think the cruise missiles will fair any better?
I fail to see why you think 2 AWACs would somehow close the airspace over Korea. If that were the case, the whole DMZ problem would have been solved years ago. Detecting the pretense of an LO platform is a very different animal from being able to engage it.
I fail to see why you think 2 AWACs would somehow close the airspace over Korea. If that were the case, the whole DMZ problem would have been solved years ago. Detecting the pretense of an LO platform is a very different animal from being able to engage it.
