F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[KenV]

Ken,

I believe that the F22 was initially design brief was for a multi-role fighter / attack aircraft. Many of the features that would have helped it achieve a better A to G role were deleted from the final spec.

The Raptor had an F/A-22 designation for about two years, maybe less. And that was quite late in the development cycle when Congress was looking at cutting off its funding because it no longer had an enemy to fight when the MiG 1.44 project died. Adding ground attack (late in the game) was a way to justify its continued funding. And dropping a pre-programed SDB on an ISIS command compound isn't much of an achievement, but you're right, it was an air to ground mission.

[LowObservable]

As for the T-50 video.... Apparently not everyone got the "air combat maneuvering is dead" memo.

[Courtney Mil]

KenV,

I should have paid more attention at the time. Now I know. Thanks.

[Radix]

............

[KenV]

However the missiles will have difficulty locking-on to a LO jet like the T-50.

Maybe, maybe not. The T-50, unlike the MiG1.44 is primarily stealthy in the forward hemisphere, much like a Super Hornet. Indeed, it even uses a Super Hornet-like engine intake duct radar blocker rather than a serpentine duct with RAM as is used in the F-22 and F-35. T-50 is advertized as having a .1 to 1 meter forward aspect radar cross section. That's not bad, but not all that stealthy either. The EASA radar in the F-22, F-35, F/A-18, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-35 etc, can detect an object with that size RCS at considerable range. And the passive sensors on many aircraft would likely pick up the T-50 at considerably greater range. I'm pretty sure that an AMRAAM's terminal homing radar is capable of locking onto an object with that size RCS, and that assumes it's intercepting head-on. From above and/or the side the RCS would be greater.

[Willard Whyte]

'm pretty sure that an AMRAAM's terminal homing radar is capable of locking onto an object with that size RCS

We're all jolly glad we can count on your assurances Ken, jolly glad indeed.

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Willard Whyte

We're all jolly glad we can count on your assurances Ken, jolly glad indeed.

We, kemo sabe? Don't mistakenly assume that we all agree with your patronising sarcasm. Some of we are trying to rise above that.

[a1bill]

LO: As for the T-50 video.... Apparently not everyone got the "air combat maneuvering is dead" memo.

Was it just a throw away line LO?
I don't know how the T-50 will be when it finishes development*, the FLS is sorted and it gets it's new engines. I wouldn't use that video to sing it's BFM praises. It would be interesting, if one of the pilots here reviewed it for us.

*don't they plan to have a dozen built by 2020?

[Courtney Mil]

It's hard to review a fighter based on a single video, especially from a display that majors in slow speed handling, but one or two things are immediately apparent. Most obvious is the quite remarkable ultra-high aoa handling that the Russians seem to do so well and have been for a long time - it clearly demonstrates LO's line about air combat manoeuvring. But more than that is the confidence they have in that handling to be doing it at low level, with a prototype. Roll and yaw control, even what looks like beyond 90 degrees is amazing although roll rates don't look that snappy at slow speed.

The other thing that is very clear is the SEP available, especially if those aren't the production engines. And that, in my opinion based only on the vid, is where there is a difference between T-50 and F-35, demonstrated in this video in two ways: the ability to accelerate in the vertical even at high aoa and the energy manoeuvrability available to be able to accelerate very rapidly from virtually stationary to conventional flight. Regaining energy does not appear to be an issue; again this points to LO's comment.

I think we did see an example of higher speed sustained g, but it's hard to guess at the parameters there. We also saw its ability to generate in excess of 90 degrees of pitch without simply stopping in the sky; nose authority like that wouldn't go amiss in a knife fight in a phone booth.

What the video doesn't show is off bore site weapons capability, how its acceleration continues at higher speeds, how additional weight affects what we saw there or whether it has any un-fighter-like g limits. I think I know the answers to those, but you only asked for comment on the vid.

Usual caveats about judging from videos and about any other platform and systems capabilities apply.

[glad rag]

Just a bit of light hearted banter...

Originally Posted by FODPlod

We, kemo sabe? Don't mistakenly assume that we all agree with your patronising sarcasm. Some of we are trying to rise above that.

FP..
It is noticeable that your posts are becoming increasingly belligerent whilst most of the "normal combatants" have declared something of a truce...

[KenV]

As for the T-50 video.... Apparently not everyone got the "air combat maneuvering is dead" memo.

Indeed. The T-50's high AOA and slow speed handling is nothing short of eye-wateringly spectacular. Those canted vectored thrust nozzles really work exceptionally well, as apparently do the leading edge vortex controllers, both features unique to the T-50. There are clearly some compromises made in stealth, but none in maneuverability. F-35 went the opposite direction, compromising maneuverability in favor of stealth. We'll have to wait and see which compromise direction turns out to be the better choice.

On the other hand.....

according to the article linked on another thread ( How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs ) LtCol Spanky Clifton is not enamored with thrust vectoring nor such slow speed maneuvering in combat. According to him, once you get in a close-in visual fight the old rules still apply and rule #1 is that speed is life (and more is better).

Since India is co-developing the fighter the T-50 will become, it'll be interesting to see what happens when IAF sends its fighters to operate in joint exercises with/against Typhoon, F-22, and F-35.

[Courtney Mil]

Ken,

Spanky's premise, with which I agree totally, is that once you use any significant amount of off-axis thrust vectoring, you slow down awfully quickly and become a strafe panel in the sky. This big thing here is that those engines in the prototype appear to produce so much thrust that energy loss isn't such a big problem and it appears to be able to accelerate rather well, even when pulling hard. In my opinion, the T-50 seems to offer the option of trading energy for extreme manoeuvre with the knowledge that you can regain it quickly, or it can do sustained, higher-energy, high g. Nice to have an option you don't have to use, but can without taking the rest of the day to get back up to fighting speed.

[Mach Two]

Originally Posted by KenV

once you get in a close-in visual fight the old rules still apply and rule #1 is that speed is life (and more is better)

Not quite. Speed is life. But if you want to turn (i.e. in a visual, turning fight), you need to be at corner velocity. Much above that and you're g-limited with an ever increasing radius and decreasing turn rate as you get faster. Your oppo arcs you and you catch a rocket up the jet pipe.

[KenV]

Nice to have an option you don't have to use, but can without taking the rest of the day to get back up to fighting speed.

Agreed. And the new (higher thrust) engines will reportedly improve the already stellar ability to regain energy, improving that option even further.

Clearly, the Russian designers have a different philosophy and thus have taken a different approach and emphasized different features than the designers of the F-22 and F-35. And that is largely because USAF has decided to put so many oof its eggs in the stealth basket. It'll be interesting to see which philosophy (stealth vs super maneuverability) wins out once the T-50 is fully developed, goes into production, and starts flying against F-22 and F-35.

And speaking of production, the Russians and Indians don't seem to be enamored of concurrent engineering. It appears that they're building test aircraft and fully wringing them out before committing to production. Yet another philosophical difference.

[Courtney Mil]

Ken,

Thanks for the come-back. You have completely changed the basis of my post, the purpose of which was "review the video". My comparison between the T-50 and F-35 was purely about the former's manoeuvre capability; nothing to do with stealth, which has the bigger RCS. If you read my caveats you will see that I deliberately excluded any platform and system capabilities (which includes stealth) that could, potentially, make a big difference to whether either aircraft even arrives at the merge. Agreed?

[KenV]

Not quite. Speed is life. But if you want to turn (i.e. in a visual, turning fight), you need to be at corner velocity.

That's generally true, but there are countless other variables at play. Turning fights are brutal absorbers of energy. Once you get to turning really hard speed rapidly bleeds off and maintaining corner velocity is difficult. And thrust vectoring tends to make that worse. This is where sustained turn rate comes into play. How much G can you sustain in a turn without losing altitude. It's very easy (indeed you're almost certain) to find yourself trading altitude for speed in a turning fight. So while the thrust vectoring gives you exceptional control of nose pointing, it comes at the price of speed (or altitude). And (theoretically at least) with HOBS weapons and HMDs, nose pointing is not nearly as critical anymore.

[NITRO104]

Originally Posted by Mach Two

Not quite. Speed is life. But if you want to turn (i.e. in a visual, turning fight), you need to be at corner velocity. Much above that and you're g-limited with an ever increasing radius and decreasing turn rate as you get faster. Your oppo arcs you and you catch a rocket up the jet pipe.

Although, I completely agree on academic and conservative levels, I think the question of pulling angular distances in the traditional sense in a HOBS environment is rather a not so clear cut point.
In a HOBS fight you may want to keep the distance from the shooter, not so much be at a corner speed but rather at high speed, to both rapidly engage the target and defeat the incoming missile.

I suspect, both F22 and Typhoon were designed to operate in supersonic with that in mind.

[KenV]

Ken,

Thanks for the come-back. You have completely changed the basis of my post, the purpose of which was "review the video".

I was not commenting on nor replying to your review of the video. I was making an entirely independent comment on the video. I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have created.

If you read my caveats you will see that I deliberately excluded any platform and system capabilities (which includes stealth) that could, potentially, make a big difference to whether either aircraft even arrives at the merge. Agreed?

Yes, I totally agree, and I also agree with the many other insightful points you made in your review. I apologize if I gave the impression I was attempting to counter or otherwise refute your commentary. I was not. Your commentary was spot on and I could not have said what you said any better. That was one reason I took a different approach in my commentary. You'd covered that ground very well, and I wanted to explore some different ground. Mea culpa if I gave the wrong impression.

[peter we]

However the missiles will have difficulty locking-on to a LO jet like the T-50.

Not least because they will be rare as rocking horse s***. Russia have cut their order to 16. How effective will it be when out numbered 10:1 against the F22?

[KenV]

A rare bit of good news.

The F-35 is an electron vacuum cleaner much like the F-22. The problem is sharing all that data with 4th gen aircraft because the F-35's MADL is not compatible with 4th gen aircraft. But it looks like they're developing some effective work arounds by using aerial refuelers as data repeaters. (and by they way, one reason why the KC-46 has 25+ miles of extra wiring.)

Tests show F-35s can share data with older aircraft - Reuters News 08/28/2015
Two weeks of joint testing of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet at a California air base by the Royal Netherlands Air Force showed that the new stealthy jets are able to share a significant amount of data with older warplanes, the pilot in charge of Dutch F-35 testing told Reuters.
Colonel Albert De Smit, commander of the Netherlands operational test detachment, said the testing sought to validate that the new fifth-generation F-35s could share useable data with older F-16s and aerial refueling aircraft via the Link 16 system.

He said the results showed that during combat, the F-35 could help relay key targeting, surveillance and other data to less capable F-16s and other planes, in much the same way that the U.S. Air Force's F-22 fighter jets work with older aircraft.

"The amount of information that we can share is very promising," De Smit said in a telephone interview this week. "It provides fourth generation aircraft with information that they normally would not have ... It looks like they're going to be able to execute a better mission" if used together with F-35 jets.

He added that it could take months to fully evaluate the results of the tests, which involved two to three Dutch and British F-35s, as well as Dutch F-16s, refueling planes and a small fleet of A-4 Skyhawks posing as enemy aircraft.

The Netherlands is one of the eight countries that joined the United States in funding development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and its military is a formal part of the F-35 operational test community, along with the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, as well as Britain and Australia.

The Netherlands already had two F-35 A-model jets, which are being used for the testing, and it plans to order 37 more in coming years. The planes due to go into service in 2019.