The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

[LowObservable]

Well, yes, the basic F-16A/B had its limitations. Which is why major improvements were underway by early 1981, several years before the last F-4Es were due for replacement.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%201536.html?search=msip

 

[sferrin]

Well, yes, the basic F-16A/B had its limitations. Which is why major improvements were underway by early 1981, several years before the last F-4Es were due for replacement.

Nearly a thousand F-16s had rolled out the doors before these "improvements" (some would call them "needed changes to make the aircraft actually useful") came along. "Concurrency" anybody?

It's good to hear that the F-35 will be a proven, performing product in 2025-30, after a mere 30-35 years of major investment.

The P-80 went from clean sheet to flying in 180 days. I guess those slackers over at Eurofighter were just a bunch of incompetents eh? Or maybe the Typhoon was just a bit more complex than the P-80? Hmmmm. Looks like it took a decade from first flight before they got around to cold weather testing on the Typhoon. Something like 20 years from EAP to in service? Yeah, glass houses or something right there.

 

[lastdingo]

Essentially, he's run simulations and argues that provided their advantages of stealth and communications integration are fully exploited and the enemy is not allowed to use their advantages in agility, F-35s in a group win against Su-35s. The crucial thing is that the F-35s make use of full data sharing and co-ordination and are not acting one-on-one.

Summary: F-35 will do the thing its designed to do.

Sounds like the known Russian expertise in data-sharing and cooperative air combat engagements is being ignored, though.
Save for LO the F-35 doesn't necessarily have any advantage over a modernised Su-35.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Save for LO the F-35 doesn't necessarily have any advantage over a modernised Su-35.

• Directional & LPI datalinks
• Directional SATCOM
• EW via AESA LPI radar
• LPI radar
• 360 IR system to track all Airborne objects within the WVR rangeband as well as acting as a navigation aid (replaces NVGs)
• 360 BDA
• Radar and ESM are interconnected
• More ammo for it's gun
• Not only do the sensors within the F-35 share & compare data in order to ID & track a target, it does the same with other F-35s in the area.
• Can Single-Ship GeoLocate an emitter with a Weapons Quality track.
• Can add new weapons as they come online without the need for lengthy & expensive software block integration.
• Funded & ongoing Post-SDD development.
• etc, etc, etc

You're so right, no advantage at all B)

 

[bobbymike]

Essentially, he's run simulations and argues that provided their advantages of stealth and communications integration are fully exploited and the enemy is not allowed to use their advantages in agility, F-35s in a group win against Su-35s. The crucial thing is that the F-35s make use of full data sharing and co-ordination and are not acting one-on-one.

Summary: F-35 will do the thing its designed to do.

Sounds like the known Russian expertise in data-sharing and cooperative air combat engagements is being ignored, though.
Save for LO the F-35 doesn't necessarily have any advantage over a modernised Su-35.

In what modern large integrated air combat operation that tallied in the tens of thousands of sorties using tankers, AWACs, fighters, bombers, ground attack, counter-air, air defense assets has this "known Russian expertise been tested'? It is arguable the US has been in modern medium to large integrated air operations since 1991.

 

[sferrin]

It is arguable the US has been in modern medium to large integrated air operations since 1991.

You ever read a detailed account of the opening night of Desert Storm? Mind boggling.

 

[bobbymike]

It is arguable the US has been in modern medium to large integrated air operations since 1991.

You ever read a detailed account of the opening night of Desert Storm? Mind boggling.

Thought I read in Schwarzkopf's book the Air Tasking Order ran DAILY in the tens of thousands of pages.

In my last post I should have added 'Joint' multi-service using multi-generational aircraft including the world's first and only stealth aircraft as well as large salvos of autonomous weapon systems better known as cruise missiles.

 

[sferrin]

It is arguable the US has been in modern medium to large integrated air operations since 1991.

You ever read a detailed account of the opening night of Desert Storm? Mind boggling.

Thought I read in Schwarzkopf's book the Air Tasking Order ran DAILY in the tens of thousands of pages.

In my last post I should have added 'Joint' multi-service using multi-generational aircraft including the world's first and only stealth aircraft as well as large salvos of autonomous weapon systems better known as cruise missiles.

Something like 2000+ aircraft in the air at the same time when it kicked off.

 

[bobbymike]

It is arguable the US has been in modern medium to large integrated air operations since 1991.

You ever read a detailed account of the opening night of Desert Storm? Mind boggling.

Thought I read in Schwarzkopf's book the Air Tasking Order ran DAILY in the tens of thousands of pages.

In my last post I should have added 'Joint' multi-service using multi-generational aircraft including the world's first and only stealth aircraft as well as large salvos of autonomous weapon systems better known as cruise missiles.

Something like 2000+ aircraft in the air at the same time when it kicked off.

Would have been awesome to be at a major airbase watching all the activity.

 

[sferrin]

I remember one account from an F-14 pilot. He was flying CAP and the E-2 radioed him and told him to "look down and to the East" and the Tomcat spotted 37 Tomahawks inbound.

 

[Triton]

I don't know if you were there at the time, Sferrin, but that calculus was driven on one side by many Western intel agencies and leakers, who had assiduously threat-inflated the MiG-23 in order to justify F-15s.

Weren't Western intelligence agencies just wrong about the capabilities of the Mikoyan MiG-23 "Flogger"? LowObservable, you seem to be saying that there was duplicity on the part of Western intelligence agencies in order to drive the F-X RFP that led to the development of the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle.

 

[sferrin]

I don't know if you were there at the time, Sferrin, but that calculus was driven on one side by many Western intel agencies and leakers, who had assiduously threat-inflated the MiG-23 in order to justify F-15s.

Weren't Western intelligence agencies just wrong about the capabilities of the Mikoyan MiG-23 "Flogger"? LowObservable, you seem to be saying that there was duplicity on the part of Western intelligence agencies in order to drive the F-X RFP that led to the development of the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle.

The actual Mig-23 (Flogger) had nothing to do with the F-15. At one point there was some confusion and the Mig-23 designation had been associated with the Foxbat. (I've even seen a book with "Mig-23 Foxbat".) Imagine the Foxbat's envelope combined with the assumption that it was a fighter (like the F-4) rather than an interceptor, with the Flogger's production numbers. THAT'S what drove the F-15 requirement.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/22/the_last_of_the_gunfighters_108267.html

 

[sferrin]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/22/the_last_of_the_gunfighters_108267.html

And that's best/worst case. Make 1980 the cutoff date and see what the numbers tell us.

 

[Adventurer104]

You ever read a detailed account of the opening night of Desert Storm? Mind boggling.


Can somebody direct me to this please?

thanks in advance!

 

[sferrin]

You ever read a detailed account of the opening night of Desert Storm? Mind boggling.


Can somebody direct me to this please?

thanks in advance!

Bits and pieces here and there but here a couple to start with:

http://www.amazon.com/Gulf-Air-War-Debrief-Described/dp/1880588005

http://www.amazon.com/Doesnt-Take-Hero-Autobiography-Schwarzkopf/dp/0553563386/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437695124&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=schwarzkoppf

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/002881021X/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=

They're all good but that first one is a gem if you can get your hands on it.

 

[bobbymike]

General Chuck Horner led the air campaign and wrote this with Tom Clancy, RIP

http://www.amazon.com/Every-Man-Tiger-Revised-Commander-ebook/dp/B001QL5M9Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437699620&sr=1-1&keywords=general+chuck+horner&pebp=1437699654470&perid=02QBW8VTPJSM2Q9Y2F9E

 

[marauder2048]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/22/the_last_of_the_gunfighters_108267.html

And that's best/worst case. Make 1980 the cutoff date and see what the numbers tell us.

I always found the designation "last of the gunfighters" funny given that the F-105 had 20+ confirmed gun kills and the F-8 had maybe 4.
In any event, looking to the "dogfights" of Vietnam for insight into modern air combat is about as useful as trying to glean insight into
modern land warfare from the tank vs. tank combat of Vietnam.

 

[sferrin]

General Chuck Horner led the air campaign and wrote this with Tom Clancy, RIP

http://www.amazon.com/Every-Man-Tiger-Revised-Commander-ebook/dp/B001QL5M9Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437699620&sr=1-1&keywords=general+chuck+horner&pebp=1437699654470&perid=02QBW8VTPJSM2Q9Y2F9E

Damn, how'd I forget that one? :-[

 

[marauder2048]

General Chuck Horner led the air campaign and wrote this with Tom Clancy, RIP

http://www.amazon.com/Every-Man-Tiger-Revised-Commander-ebook/dp/B001QL5M9Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437699620&sr=1-1&keywords=general+chuck+horner&pebp=1437699654470&perid=02QBW8VTPJSM2Q9Y2F9E

Damn, how'd I forget that one? :-[

Wasn't it from Horner that we got that famous account of Norman "It's all my air, and I'll use it anyway I please" Schwarzkopf?

 

[bobbymike]

The F-35 integrated test force at Edwards AFB, Calif., started ground tests for the GAU-22/A, the internal gun for the Air Force variant of the strike fighter, according to Edwards officials. The ITF hopes to finish ground testing in August and begin airborne testing in late September. The first tests were conducted in June when aircraft AF-2 fired rounds that do not explode on impact at the Gun Harmonizing Range at Edwards. The gun uses a 25mm shell, a more powerful one than the rounds fired by legacy fighters, such as the F-16, the F-15E, and the F-15C, all of which use 20mm shells, said Maj. Andrew Rollins, the 461st Flight Test Squadron assistant director of operations. Integration of the weapon is a bit more complicated on the F-35 because it is a stealth aircraft, meaning the gun will be kept behind a retractable door until the trigger is engaged. Ground testing will help testers determine whether the door opens correctly, if the gun spins up and down as designed, and if air flow is adequate to clear gasses, states the release. The gun itself was previously tested as a stand​alone, and flown during test points without firing to ensure the flight envelope will not stress gun mounts. A future block upgrade to the F-35 will enable the gun’s combat operations by 2017, officials stated earlier this year.

 

[marauder2048]

The F-35 integrated test force at Edwards AFB, Calif., started ground tests for the GAU-22/A, the internal gun for the Air Force variant of the strike fighter, according to Edwards officials. The ITF hopes to finish ground testing in August and begin airborne testing in late September. The first tests were conducted in June when aircraft AF-2 fired rounds that do not explode on impact at the Gun Harmonizing Range at Edwards. The gun uses a 25mm shell, a more powerful one than the rounds fired by legacy fighters, such as the F-16, the F-15E, and the F-15C, all of which use 20mm shells, said Maj. Andrew Rollins, the 461st Flight Test Squadron assistant director of operations. Integration of the weapon is a bit more complicated on the F-35 because it is a stealth aircraft, meaning the gun will be kept behind a retractable door until the trigger is engaged. Ground testing will help testers determine whether the door opens correctly, if the gun spins up and down as designed, and if air flow is adequate to clear gasses, states the release. The gun itself was previously tested as a stand​alone, and flown during test points without firing to ensure the flight envelope will not stress gun mounts. A future block upgrade to the F-35 will enable the gun’s combat operations by 2017, officials stated earlier this year.

Looks like they are very close to type qualifying the PGU-47/U (the Nammo 25mm APEX round). From the April 2015 Armaments forum.

 

[Triton]

Could you please show the class where the JSF was planned to cost $20 million a pop?

The "affordability goals" of the JSF program was a flyaway cost per aircraft in FY 1994 dollars of $28 million for the Air Force CTOL variant, $30-35 million for the Marines STOVL variant, and $31-38 million for the US Navy CTOL variant. $45 million to $61 million in today's dollars.

Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421473/f-35-defense-waste-danger
http://fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/crs-rl30563.pdf

 

[kcran567]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/22/the_last_of_the_gunfighters_108267.html

And that's best/worst case. Make 1980 the cutoff date and see what the numbers tell us.

I always found the designation "last of the gunfighters" funny given that the F-105 had 20+ confirmed gun kills and the F-8 had maybe 4.
In any event, looking to the "dogfights" of Vietnam for insight into modern air combat is about as useful as trying to glean insight into
modern land warfare from the tank vs. tank combat of Vietnam.

And what was the lesson they learned in Vietnam? That cheaper, smaller, lower tech fighter aircraft could shoot their hi-tech aircraft down at close range, hence the need for the ability to dogfight if necessary. What if there is a stealth stalemate where both aircraft devolve into a close range fight. IR sensors, Low frequency radars and L-band antennae that can be used to get in close to a long range opponent. Night time bombing/strike missions are what the F-35 will be best at. Close range dogfight not so good? The F-35 will probably be able to avoid most close range contacts I agree, unless there is some reliable way for an enemy to get in close range with some type of counter-stealth equipment and tactics. But even a Mig-21 Bison is difficult to detect with its radar off and using an IR pod could manage to get in close range of an F-35, is anyone going to say that this is an impossibility?

 

[sferrin]

What if there is a stealth stalemate where both aircraft devolve into a close range fight. IR sensors, Low frequency radars and L-band antennae that can be used to get in close to a long range opponent. Night time bombing/strike missions are what the F-35 will be best at. Close range dogfight not so good? The F-35 will probably be able to avoid most close range contacts I agree, unless there is some reliable way for an enemy to get in close range with some type of counter-stealth equipment and tactics. But even a Mig-21 Bison is difficult to detect with its radar off and using an IR pod could manage to get in close range of an F-35, is anyone going to say that this is an impossibility?

Is anybody here going to say a Mig-21 could outmaneuver a 5th gen HOBS missile? Maybe we should have the F-35 pilot wear a white scarf as well? Have you even bothered to see when the last fighter-to-fighter gun kill was? Not saying it's impossible but I find it more than a little amusing so much attention is being put on a low-likelihood event yet, when one points out the vulnerability of non-stealth aircraft to ALL radar guided/cued weapons, all we hear are crickets. ;D

 

[Arjen]

But even a Mig-21 Bison is difficult to detect with its radar off and using an IR pod could manage to get in close range of an F-35, is anyone going to say that this is an impossibility?

In 1 hour, 32 minutes and 17 seconds.

 

[sferrin]

But even a Mig-21 Bison is difficult to detect with its radar off and using an IR pod could manage to get in close range of an F-35, is anyone going to say that this is an impossibility?

In 1 hour, 32 minutes and 17 seconds.

I would think 18 seconds.

 

[LowObservable]

The Davies piece seems to rest on the assumption that The Test Report in particular, and energy maneuverability/BFM in general, are all about guns, but even the F-35 design (quad tail, 50-deg. alpha limit) indicates that nobody takes that view or dismisses the need for an agile platform.


And anyone mentioning smart phones and electronics needs to think about said technologies when the JSF configuration was drawn out in 1995. The lesson is not that the JAST/JSF thinking represents modern technology (8 MB RAM, modems running at a screaming 28.8k, and CompuServe) but that >20-year platforms must be made adaptable to match the <7-year information cycle.

 

[sferrin]

The Davies piece seems to rest on the assumption that The Test Report in particular, and energy maneuverability/BFM in general, are all about guns, but even the F-35 design (quad tail, 50-deg. alpha limit) indicates that nobody takes that view or dismisses the need for an agile platform.

I don't think anybody has said they did. It's the MSM who has misinterpreted one test (deliberately or by accident depending), that wasn't even meant as a "win at all costs" "dogfight". Yet they're right there screeching about the F-35 being a lemon. I guess the F-22 is a lemon too because a T-38 bested it once eh?

And anyone mentioning smart phones and electronics needs to think about said technologies when the JSF configuration was drawn out in 1995. The lesson is not that the JAST/JSF thinking represents modern technology (8 MB RAM, modems running at a screaming 28.8k, and CompuServe) but that >20-year platforms must be made adaptable to match the <7-year information cycle.

That's just the thing. Even if the F-35 had stuck to the most idyllic schedule it still started in year 19XX and it's now 2015 and things have changed. (Of course every other aircraft that started back then is in the same boat.) But there is no way around that EXCEPT to try and make the architecture as open as possible. But even things like Windows don't accomplish that. Hell, I've got old programs that wouldn't run on XP because they required a 16 bit OS, and since they're old abandonware nobody has written a translator. (Unlike Doom, which you can play on Windows 8 because it's so popular.)

 

[LowObservable]

The Davies piece was pretty clear:

To a fair approximation, if you can see the other guy you can get a missile lock and launch. Modern within visual range air-to-air warfare isn’t a case of the best flyer in the most agile plane wins—it’s much more likely that everyone loses.
[/size]
[/size]That is not a paraphrase. Nor is it MSM. And it's counter to every fighter design out there, including the JSF. Open architecture only goes so far. How long has any of us owned any one digital device? Even the Windows and IOS platforms reach a point of no backwards compatibility, other than simple file types. An airplane probably needs two classes of avionics: flight-critical, which basically remain tethered to the platform with no changes other than counter-obsolescence; and mission, which has little more than a wall-plug connection to the platform and can be comprehensively overhauled on a <10-year cycle.

 

[sferrin]

To a fair approximation, if you can see the other guy you can get a missile lock and launch. Modern within visual range air-to-air warfare isn’t a case of the best flyer in the most agile plane wins—it’s much more likely that everyone loses.[/size][/font]

So what you're saying then is that it's best not to be seen? Hmmm. . .I wonder how we could pull that off. . .

 

[LowObservable]

I was quoting Davies. *&%*ing format issues.

 

[sferrin]

I was quoting Davies. *&%*ing format issues.

Even before today's HOBS missiles it was getting to the point of "mutual suicide". I recall reading, as far back as the 80s, that in exercises it was not uncommon for the "enemy" to get a short range missile shot off before getting hit with the Sparrow/AIM-120, resulting in both aircraft getting shot down. I can only imagine what it must be like with stuff like LOAL and full spherical attack ability that stuff like Python 5, and others, provide.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The "affordability goals" of the JSF program was a flyaway cost per aircraft in FY 1994 dollars of $28 million for the Air Force CTOL variant, $30-35 million for the Marines STOVL variant, and $31-38 million for the US Navy CTOL variant. $45 million to $61 million in today's dollars.

Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421473/f-35-defense-waste-danger
http://fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/crs-rl30563.pdf

That was before the X-32/35 selection process was even done and well before any contact was ever signed.


In other words, wishful thinking.

 

[sferrin]

The "affordability goals" of the JSF program was a flyaway cost per aircraft in FY 1994 dollars of $28 million for the Air Force CTOL variant, $30-35 million for the Marines STOVL variant, and $31-38 million for the US Navy CTOL variant. $45 million to $61 million in today's dollars.

Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421473/f-35-defense-waste-danger
http://fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/crs-rl30563.pdf

That was before the X-32/35 selection process was even done and well before any contact was ever signed.


In other words, wishful thinking.

Reminds me of the days when the F-16 was suppose to be the "cheap, lightweight fighter" that ended up costing several times that of the aircraft it most frequently replaced (the F-4). For some reason we don't hear people complaining about that. Curious.

 

[Triton]

I was attempting to answer the question posed by sferrin to lastdingo.

The JSF was meant to be cheap, a worthy successor of a F-16 that had a fly-away price of USD 20 million.

Could you please show the class where the JSF was planned to cost $20 million a pop?

Answer:

The "affordability goals" of the JSF program was a flyaway cost per aircraft in FY 1994 dollars of $28 million for the Air Force CTOL variant, $30-35 million for the Marines STOVL variant, and $31-38 million for the US Navy CTOL variant. $45 million to $61 million in today's dollars.

Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421473/f-35-defense-waste-danger
http://fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/crs-rl30563.pdf

 

[SpudmanWP]

Even with wishful thinking.. it was at best $28 mil, not $20.

 

[bring_it_on]

Even the early European F-16 deliveries had seen the not-to-exceed price of the aircraft climb up to beyond 11 million. To expect an F-35 in the 90's to cost $20 (or even 28) Million is and was wishful thinking. It was obviously not something that was ever put in as a program requirement or anything (to the best of my knowledge) unlike the Viper's not to exceed cost which itself was exceeded by a considerable margin

Posting a snippet from a 1986 article from the LA Times [F-20 Northrop Jet in Shoot-Out With Dynamics' F-16, Ralph Vartabedian]

General Dynamics sells its F-16 for about $18 million, including training and support equipment. NORTHROP says it would sell a similarly equipped F-20 for $15 million. NORTHROP claims that the F-20 requires half the manpower to support it than the F-16, a claim that General Dynamics disputes.

The mere existence of an officially sponsored competition and the potential for the Air Force buying the F-20 is a significant measure of the political support built up by NORTHROP's Jones.

"People say we have lost to the F-16, but we haven't lost any competitions, because there haven't been any," Jones said in an interview last week. "We have been in the on-deck circle, but this is the first time we have been in the batter's box."
quote]

 

[Triton]

Even the early European F-16 deliveries had seen the not-to-exceed price of the aircraft climb up to beyond 11 million. To expect an F-35 in the 90's to cost $20 (or even 28) Million is and was wishful thinking. It was obviously not something that was ever put in as a program requirement or anything (to the best of my knowledge) unlike the Viper's not to exceed cost which itself was exceeded by a considerable margin

The "affordable goal" flyaway cost numbers were printed in the Report for Congress: Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status, and Issues Updated April 8, 2004:

These are the projected “flyaway costs” per aircraft in FY1994 dollars, which program officials have
stated as affordability goals. As noted above on p. 4, flyaway cost represents a significant part
of an aircraft’s procurement cost but does not include the cost of all procurement items nor the
costs of R&D and military construction.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Actually, I disagree. It was perfectly feasible to design a fighter to meet that goal ($28 Million in 1994 dollars is $45 Million in 2015). Textron's Scorpion is expected to come in below $20 Million in today's money. I imagine something like a new Gripen, based on an off-the-shelf F414 engine, with off-the-shelf avionics, controlled RCS but not true stealth, would come in at $45 million or below when built in numbers. This could have been a decent replacement for all those F-16s, A-10s etc. It wouldn't necessarily have been dramatically more capable but it would be new build and lower maintenance with a good lifespan ahead. With the F-22 to deal with advanced threats, this would have made sense to me at least.


The USAF drove JSF to high cost with their insanely gold-plated requirements, then canned the F-22 early because the cheaper F-35 was now capable enough to not need as many, and now have to buy lots of capable-but-costly machines.


You reap what you sow.