The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

Stealth: done before on F-117, B-2, F-22
Supersonic: done before on F-100
STOVL: done before on Harrier
Networked operation: done before on Gripen
Sensors 'fusion': yet to be realised, with 10 million lines of code involved that's going to be interesting

Combining the lot *is* new.
Consider the F-16 again, and it combines some characteristics not combined before it. It had to be forced on the military as well.

What was ground breaking about the A3D, A4, Mirage III or Draken?
A3D - drastic weight control during design process, carrier-borne nuke carrying jet.
A4D - have you been paying attention?
Draken - double delta supersonic interceptor, on a budget, that could operate from public roads.
<edit>
Mirage III - mass produced mixed power delta wing fighter (yes, Stéphane, that's one of my favourites too)
 
Now who was talking about negativity?

F-4 and F-16: Set the baseline for fighters for their eras. Both were important, not so much because everything on them was new tech, but because they blended new and available tech in what turned out to be very adaptable and useful configurations.

A3D - Its predecessor was the AJ. Say no more.

This is pretty much a useless argument, because Sferrin has decided what is "groundbreaking" and what isn't. As far as I can tell, the F-22, F-35 and the B-2 are groundbreaking. I'd guess he'd also add the A-12/SR and U-2. (I'd throw in the MiG-25, as a more-or-less day-to-day usable M=2.8+ aircraft.) And most of these were years late and way over-budget or quite specialized.

And of course, the F-35 is not all-new either. Sensors and weapons? State of the art. Up-and-away aero? Not so exciting. Signatures? no better than F-22, probably not as good. Propulsion? CV and CTOL variants (Rafale anyone)?

It brings STOVL to the party. Makes the Marines happy, and that's about it.
 
Why is it that people can't simply agree to disagree? I know that sounds lame, but read on.


It is obvious that certain members here simply do not like the F-35, regardless of what is said in its favour by those involved in the program (Yes, I am part of one of the many very minor companies involved in this program - I have never hidden that fact and in fact are proud to say it!). However, rather then just say so and get over it they have to keep producing negative posts etc (with constantly changing approaches, but all heading in the same direction) just to somehow 'stroke' that dislike. If you really believe it is such a bad program that deserves to be cut, then this is not the place to achieve that (sorry, nothing against the forum, but it is simply not that influential ;) ). What you need to do is to contact your respective government representative with your views - hell, maybe if enough of you do it, you may even have your dreams come true! Failing that, why don't you travel to Ft Worth, TX and camp outside Lockheed Martin's main production facility and protest. ;)


Until then, could we simply keep this thread to factual posts about the F-35 rather then the constant flame wars?
 
Lockheed Martin F-35 completes night-time air-to-air refueling tests:

Lockheed Martin F-35A Completes First Night Refueling Mission

FORT WORTH, Texas, March 26, 2012 – The first night refueling in the history of the Lockheed Martin F-35 program was completed Thursday at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Piloted by U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Peter Vitt, AF-4, an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant, rendezvoused with an Air Force KC-135 tanker and successfully received fuel through the F-35’s boom receptacle. Vitt’s sortie lasted more than three hours. In addition to qualifying with the KC-135, the F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards AFB will also conduct night refueling tests with the KC-10.

Source:
http://gizmodo.com/5897068/the-f+35-looks-like-a-stealth-spaceship-at-night
http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=70128730&trkid=1660
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... efuel.html
 

Attachments

  • original.jpg
    original.jpg
    196.9 KB · Views: 315
  • f_35anightrefuelkc135_617.jpg
    f_35anightrefuelkc135_617.jpg
    139.1 KB · Views: 297
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/sets/72157629316155136/with/7018678655/
 
Removed 8 pages of recent arguments and pointless to-ing and fro-ing about this and unlocked the topic.


I suggest anyone who wants to continue these discussions creates a new topic like "F-35 Flame War" in The Bar where you can endlessly debate the same things in circles.


I suggest this topic be kept on the technical aspects of the F-35 program, positive and negative.
 
Yay! thanks overscan, needed doing.

Regarding the F-35 weapon bays, does anyone have any details on how the F-35B differs from the A and C?

I'm aware the B can only take 1000 pounders while the A and C can take 2000 pounders but have never seen anything explaining the difference in bay volumes.

Weapon bay related images here http://gizmodo.com/5648748/first-view-at-the-f+35-hidden-weapon-bays
 
Reuters has news on F-35 costs.
(Reuters) - The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters.
The Pentagon's latest, staggering estimate of the lifetime cost of the F-35 -- its most expensive weapons program -- is up from about $1 trillion a year ago, and includes inflation.
While inflation accounts for more than one-third of the projected F-35 operating costs, military officials and industry executives were quick to point out that it is nearly impossible to predict inflation over the next half-century.
They also argue that no other weapons program's costs have been calculated over such a long period, and that even shorter-term cost projections for other aircraft do not include the cost of modernization programs and upgrades.

The new cost estimate reflects the Pentagon's proposal to postpone orders for 179 planes for five years, a move that U.S. official say will save $15.1 billion through 2017, and should avert costly retrofits if further problems arise during testing of the new fighter, which is only about 20 percent complete. The Pentagon still plans to buy 2,443 of the new radar-evading, supersonic warplanes, plus 14 development aircraft, in the coming decades, although Air Force Secretary Michael Donley last week warned that further technical problems or cost increases could eat away at those numbers. The new estimate, based on calculations made by the Cost Assessment Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, includes operating and maintenance costs of $1.11 trillion, including inflation, and development and procurement costs of $332 billion. The Government Accountability Office last week projected it would cost $397 billion to develop and buy the planes, up from its earlier forecast of $382 billion. The Pentagon office that runs the F-35 program office has a lower estimate for lifetime costs, although it is still around $1 trillion, according to two sources familiar with the estimates. Both industry and government have put a huge emphasis on reducing operating costs and keeping the plane affordable. The new estimates are part of a revised F-35 baseline dated March 26 that will be sent to Congress on Thursday.

AVERAGE COST $135 MLN PER F-35
The new baseline forecasts the average cost of the F-35 fighter, including research and development (R&D) and inflation, at $135 million per plane, plus an additional $26 million for the F135 engine built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp. In 2012 dollars, the average cost of each single-seat, single-engine plane, including R&D, would be $112.5 million, plus $22 million for the engine. This is the first year that the government has separated out the cost of the plane and the engine, and comparison figures were not immediately available. Lockheed Martin has said the average cost of the plane will be around $65 million to $70 million, based on 2010 dollars. Lockheed Martin declined comment on the new estimate, saying it had not yet received the Pentagon's latest report.

Lockheed spokesman Joe LaMarca said the company still believed the new fighter jet would cost the same or less to operate and maintain than the seven legacy warplanes it will replace, while offering far greater capabilities.
INCREASES DUE TO GOVERNMENT CHANGES
Defense analyst Loren Thompson said three quarters of the cost increases on the F-35 program were linked to government changes in the scope of the program, and the way it was estimating costs. For instance, he said, the Pentagon initially planned to station the plane at 33 bases, but later changed the number to 49. It initially calculated operating costs over 30 years, but then chose a longer timeframe of 50 years, he said. "The program costs appear to be rising much faster than they actually are because the government keeps changing how it calculates things," Thompson said. The Pentagon's proposal to postpone buying 179 planes for five years added $60 billion to the operations and support cost of the program, since those planes will now be delivered in later years when inflation is higher. The push also added two years to the duration of the program, according to an internal Lockheed calculation obtained by Reuters. But Winslow Wheeler, a critic of the program, predicts cost growth on the program will be even greater than estimated by the Pentagon, given the complexity of the F-35 fighter.

Lockheed is developing three variants of the new plane for the U.S. military and eight partner countries: Britain, Australia, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, Australia and the Netherlands. They now plan to buy a combined total of 697 planes, down from 730 in the previous Pentagon estimate. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Anthony Boadle)
<edit> Provided some highlighting in what I consider a balanced story
 
Worked it out for myself, the B's bomb holes are shorter. Compare the bay door positions with the landing gear doors in these pics.

http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/a/sdd_f35testa_069.jpg
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/news/2012_BFX_FLT100_P00135_11_1269967624_1327.jpg
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/news/2012_News_F35B_11P00649_24_1269967624_1586.jpg
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/a/sdd_f35testa_067.jpg
 
Arjen said:
Reuters has news on F-35 costs.

Did Reuters happen to mention the combined costs of the F-16, Hornet/Super Hornet, Harrier programs extrapolated out 50 years for comparison? I didn't think so. I'm surprised you posted such an obvious F-35 hit piece so soon after Paul admonished us to keep it clean.
 
Like the earwig said...

I think it's a little unfair to call it a "hit piece" when LockMart and Loren Thompson are cited.
 
The article is interesting, and does flag up the changes in timeframe etc.

My own view is that $ are not the right way to cost - who knows labour rates in the future, changes in support tech etc.? Conventional costing approaches cannot realistically capture a half century of the future.

I did a report on this recently for the US DoD:(http://www.acquisitionresearch.net/publications/detail/819/)
which also has some illustrative data for Harrier and Hornet (p.17). Until we have similar reliability and maintainability data for the F-35, based on in service use, costs for it are guesses, IMHO.
 
harrier said:
The article is interesting, and does flag up the changes in timeframe etc.

My own view is that $ are not the right way to cost - who knows labour rates in the future, changes in support tech etc.? Conventional costing approaches cannot realistically capture a half century of the future.

I did a report on this recently for the US DoD:(http://www.acquisitionresearch.net/publications/detail/819/)
which also has some illustrative data for Harrier and Hornet (p.17). Until we have similar reliability and maintainability data for the F-35, based on in service use, costs for it are guesses, IMHO.

Sounds like things are too nebulous to give a decent prediction. Given the state of the current procurement/political system that doesn't really surprise me. Pretty much every other program is suffering from the same thing to one degree or another. It's just that when you're effectively replacing the nation's fighter force the price tag is going to be higher because the scope is so much larger. Hell, just look at the circus surrounding the Zumwalt/Burke Flight III fiasco when it comes to cost predictions.
 
It is also important to note that the US government will spend $375 trillion over the next 50 years with total GDP output $1,875 trillion or, yes, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five TRILLION.

So if the F-35 insures air dominance for fifty years at basically 1/375th the cost of the government or 1/1,875th the output of national product over that time frame it is quite a bargain.
 
overscan said:
I suggest this topic be kept on the technical aspects of the F-35 program, positive and negative.

Folks,

Given what Paul has already said, why are we already back into flame war triggers. Articles on cost/politics etc are pure fuel for this. Articles/opinion peices with biases one way or another are also not helpful - in fact they are often worse.

Let's please keep to the pure technical aspects (such as SteveO's posts above) or undisputed facts (such as the first night-time air-to-air refuelling tests post by Triton above).

All other debates of the F-35 is good/bad will only result in the thread being locked again. Moreover, they are pointless, since no matter how much either side argues, it is NOT going to have any impact on the overall progress of the program or politicians decisions o support or even cancel it.

Regards,

Greg
 
GTX said:
overscan said:
I suggest this topic be kept on the technical aspects of the F-35 program, positive and negative.

Folks,

Given what Paul has already said, why are we already back into flame war triggers. Articles on cost/politics etc are pure fuel for this. Articles/opinion peices with biases one way or another are also not helpful - in fact they are often worse.

Let's please keep to the pure technical aspects (such as SteveO's posts above) or undisputed facts (such as the first night-time air-to-air refuelling tests post by Triton above).

All other debates of the F-35 is good/bad will only result in the thread being locked again. Moreover, they are pointless, since no matter how much either side argues, it is NOT going to have any impact on the overall progress of the program or politicians decisions o support or even cancel it.

Regards,

Greg

Well said.
 
Speaking of the technical and operational sides, what do ye think is the likelyhood of a drone variant or derivative being seriously proposed/developed for the USAF in the near term?
 
overscan said:
I suggest this topic be kept on the technical aspects of the F-35 program, positive and negative.

I have no desire to stoke a flame war, but I think it is important to recall that the technical side of the JSF programme was shaped by cost - remember 'CAIV - Cost as an Independent Variable'.

It was to reduce costs that three versions of one plane were designed, and escalating costs may come to limit the scope for technical fixes, upgrades etc.

As long as people stay civil I think cost is a significant aspect to discuss. I for one find the way it shapes the overall programme a fascinating area and would like to see it discussed here, but not argued over.

If people get out of line in their tone and language and breach forum rules, then banning them may be the answer, but please let us not ban subjects that matter just to prevent a minority from getting carried away.
 
GH - None at all.

The end of basic IOT&E is now expected in April 2019 (plan) or October (threshold) according to the latest SAR.

Also, UAVs have a different requirement set. You want to drive signatures down, because you don't have a reliable way to respond to the threat (it will be a while before we equip a UAV with autonomous lethal self-defense); at the same time, if you're not reactive you don't need high g. That's why most of the combat UAVs we see tend to be mantas.

Harrier - Cost is very important, and you'll probably see the SAR online pretty soon. However, fact-based online discussion of this topic is (as you will have gathered) difficult.
 
I copied the text / post below from a different forum and posted it here because I think the questions are good ones. Bronc



"Who owns the technology that goes into the F-35? Who owns the computer codes, the various systems i.e.: the helmet technology, the sensors, radar, computers, FCS's, and stealth stuff?

If the F-35 was cancelled, would it be necessary to 'start from scratch' with all of these systems or could the US government hand all of it to Boeing or Boeing, Northrop and Grumman and say, "UF this stuff and then put all these systems into three different airframes?""


Those are very interesting questions.

Bronc
 
Broncazonk said:
I stole/copied this question from a different forum and posted it here because I think it is a good one.

"Who owns the technology that goes into the F-35? Who owns the computer codes, the various systems i.e.: the helmet technology, the sensors, radar, computers, FCS's, and stealth stuff?

If the F-35 was cancelled, would it be necessary to 'start from scratch' with all of these systems or could the US government hand all of it to Boeing or Boeing, Northrop and Grumman and say, "UF this stuff and then put all these systems into three different airframes?""

Those are interesting questions. If LM can't do the job, does that mean we, as a country, have to start at zero to get the strike fighter that we deserve?

Bronc

The US Government owns it all for the most part.
 
The text below has again been copied from another forum. I've repeated it here because it raises some interesting possibilities. (The consensus is the government owns all the technology that is going into the F-35. Does any of the below make any sense? Bronc)



"Okay, next question. Could some of the "best stuff" that's in the F-35 be transferred directly to another program, specifically the F-22? The F-22 airframe is a known quantity. Would the F-22 airframe benefit from all/some of the advanced technology that's in the F-35? The idea would be to restart the F-22 line / program and update / upgrade it with the best stuff coming out of the F-35 program.

Would an F-22 that was upgraded with F-35 systems make a good strike fighter? Could the existing F-22 airframe be 'navalized' in less time and for less cost than working out all the wrinkles in the F-35C?"
 
Broncazonk said:
Would an F-22 that was upgraded with F-35 systems make a good strike fighter?

I'd argue that it's already a good strike fighter. You've got the ability to deliver multiple PGMs already. Add in JDRADM or whatever it's called these days and there's your SEAD/DEAD capability. The question is, what do you want it to do that it can't do already? At a minimum expanding the weapons options would make sense, such as adding JASSM (will it fit in the bay...maybe not, but perhaps bulged bay doors can be made with minimal RCS impact).

Broncazonk said:
Could the existing F-22 airframe be 'navalized' in less time and for less cost than working out all the wrinkles in the F-35C?"

No. The naval F-22 design was rather different than the USAF F-22. Not as different as the YF-23 to the NATF-23, but still quite different. At a minimum you'd have to beef up the airframe in spots, adding weight and potentially impacting maneuverability and acceleration unless you uprate the F119s or figure out a way to get F135s in there. Need beefier landing gear and an arrestor hook. Then you have to see if the aerodynamics need to be modded to deal with the standard carrier landing flight profile. You could probably do it if you really wanted to, but I'd bet it's not going to be cheaper than going forward with the F-35C.
 
I think adding MALD or MALI to the F-22 would create some interesting possibilites.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Speaking of the technical and operational sides, what do ye think is the likelyhood of a drone variant or derivative being seriously proposed/developed for the USAF in the near term?
Don't think there is any need for a drone/UCAV variant. That capability will be better covered by purpose built airframes.

One thing they might want to consider in the future is an optionally manned capability. Basically a standard F-35A,B or C that can carry out a mission without the pilot. Maybe the F-35B might find a role as an emergency stealth CSAR/extraction platform. I'm guessing it's just software development to get such a capability on a F-35.
 
theoretically it could be a possibility from a specialised mission perspective (e.g. a dedicated EW variant maybe) but certainly not required from a training point of view That said, you might find that it isn't required to have a second crew member for these specialised missions either. Either way, it will be way down the track.
 
sferrin said:
Broncazonk said:
I stole/copied this question from a different forum and posted it here because I think it is a good one.

"Who owns the technology that goes into the F-35? Who owns the computer codes, the various systems i.e.: the helmet technology, the sensors, radar, computers, FCS's, and stealth stuff?

If the F-35 was cancelled, would it be necessary to 'start from scratch' with all of these systems or could the US government hand all of it to Boeing or Boeing, Northrop and Grumman and say, "UF this stuff and then put all these systems into three different airframes?""

Those are interesting questions. If LM can't do the job, does that mean we, as a country, have to start at zero to get the strike fighter that we deserve?

Bronc

The US Government owns it all for the most part.


True...maybe. This is actually dependent upon the specific contractual clauses - typically Foreground Intellectual Property (IP) (i.e. that developed during the course of the contract - e.g. the software for the AN/APG-81 radar) would be customer (i.e. Govt) owned. However Background IP (i.e. that which the companies (all the hundreds of them) already had and then used to develop the systems etc - e.g. say Northrop Grumman reused some specific software code that they had already developed internally prior to being awarded the AN/APG-81 radar contract) would not be Govt owned but rather owned by the companies involved. Usually there are licences granted for the use of this Background IP, however that is usually to allow for cases where the company involved goes bankrupt or otherwise ceases to operate or to allow the end user to maintain equipment. True, in rare cases it can be used to allow another company to take over a function, however that is extremely rare and will usually be fought tooth and nail by company lawyers (certainly if it were going to a direct competitor). In fact, in such a case, you may find the recipient companies would also baulk at such an action because the risks of litigation that that opens them up to is too great.

Moreover, it is overly simplistic to say that you can simply 'wrap a new airframe' around the cool technology and away you go. The development of a weapon system such as this is much more complex then that.

Regards,

Greg
 
Broncazonk said:
Would the F-22 airframe benefit from all/some of the advanced technology that's in the F-35? The idea would be to restart the F-22 line / program and update / upgrade it with the best stuff coming out of the F-35 program.

Would an F-22 that was upgraded with F-35 systems make a good strike fighter? Could the existing F-22 airframe be 'navalized' in less time and for less cost than working out all the wrinkles in the F-35C?"

First up. it is already being looked at to retrofit some F-35 Tech into the F-22s, specifically at the system/subsystem level. No-one is talking about re-starting F-22 production though. This is more to enhance the existing F-22s.

Re the idea that a navalised F-22 could be developed "...in less time and for less cost than working out all the wrinkles in the F-35C". Nope, not possible. For one the F-35C program is already well underway whereas this theoretical 'F-22N' would need to be started from scratch...or else old NATF concepts would have to be dusted off. Either way, it would certainly take more time and therefore more money to go this route then to simply complete the F-35C development and introduction into service.
 
GTX said:
Broncazonk said:
Would the F-22 airframe benefit from all/some of the advanced technology that's in the F-35? The idea would be to restart the F-22 line / program and update / upgrade it with the best stuff coming out of the F-35 program.

Would an F-22 that was upgraded with F-35 systems make a good strike fighter? Could the existing F-22 airframe be 'navalized' in less time and for less cost than working out all the wrinkles in the F-35C?"

First up. it is already being looked at to retrofit some F-35 Tech into the F-22s, specifically at the system/subsystem level. No-one is talking about re-starting F-22 production though. This is more to enhance the existing F-22s.

Re the idea that a nasalised F-22 could be developed

Would a nasalised F-22 have a bigger nose for a new radar or something? ;)
 
sferrin said:
Would a nasalised F-22 have a bigger nose for a new radar or something? ;)


Yes, and a new very powerful reverse thrust system ;D ...damn auto spell check!!!
 
U.S. Remains Committed to F-35 Program, Panetta Says
(Source: US Department of defense; issued March 28, 2012)

OTTAWA, Ontario --- Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta yesterday reaffirmed the Defense Department’s commitment to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and to ensuring it remains within the defense strategy’s budget.

The secretary spoke at a news conference following a meeting with Mexican and Canadian defense leaders here.

“As part of the defense strategy that the United States went through and has put in place, we have made very clear that we are 100 percent committed to the development of the F-35,” he said. “It’s a fifth-generation fighter, [and] we absolutely need it for the future.”

Acknowledging that the Defense Department has to be vigilant and provide as much oversight as possible as the aircraft continues to be developed, Panetta said Pentagon officials are confident that “this plane can do everything that it’s being asked to do in terms of performance.

“We’ve been testing it, and we continue to evaluate it as we proceed,” he continued. “And we’ve made very clear to the industries involved in its production that they have to keep it within the cross-confinements that we’ve provided with regards to this plane.”

Panetta noted the price of each aircraft varies from variant to variant, with three types involved in the program’s development.Canada signed on for the project’s production, sustainment and follow-on development phase on Dec. 11, 2006, along withAustralia, and the United Kingdom.

Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay called the F-35 an example of interoperability as his country faces similar challenges with the joint strike fighter program.

“In addition, I would add that this is the aircraft that the Royal Canadian Air Force, after an extensive internal examination of capabilities and what was on the market, came to us and said, ‘This the plane we need. This is the plane we want for a whole number of reasons.’”

MacKay said “due diligence and analysis” are necessary to ensure taxpayers are well-served and their best interests are considered.

“On the aspect of budgets as we go forward, every department of government -- every defense department, certainly all of our NATO partners, our Mexican colleagues [and] our friends around the globe -- are looking to prioritize their defense spending,” he said. “It [should] come as no surprise to anyone here that Canada is going through that exact same process in determining what our defense needs are at home.”
 
Given the F-35's somewhat limited combat radius (F-35A = 585 miles) does the lack of a low observable (stealth) tanker fleet limit the effectiveness of the mission and the aircraft? (The same question goes for the F-22 which is even more range limited.) The S-500 SAM missile system will have an intercept range in excess of 350 miles.

Bronc
 
Broncazonk said:
Given the F-35's somewhat limited combat radius (F-35A = 585 miles) does the lack of a low observable (stealth) tanker fleet limit the effectiveness of the mission and the aircraft? (The same question goes for the F-22 which is even more range limited.) The S-500 SAM missile system will have an intercept range in excess of 350 miles.

Bronc

Well couple things: the long range missiles that give the S-400 and S-500 their vaunted range are very large and heavy missiles, they’re not well suited for engaging nimble targets like fighters. They are a threat to supporting tankers so they’d have to be heavily suppressed or destroyed before the TSL (tanker safe line) can move up for extended ops deep into bad guy territory.

The F-22’s range, according to the F-22 Extended Range Study 060402, is 630mn straight line all subsonic. With a 6% routing factor its 590nm; I believe the 6% routing factor is very similar to the F-35 KPP so just flying subsonic they’re the same. Add in a 100nm supersonic segment and the F-22’s radius drops to 490nm with the 6% routing factor. If the F-22 was to supercruise its entire enroute fuel allotment it’d be able to achieve a roughly 300nm radius.

Finally we need to keep in mind that the F-35 and F-22 do not operate in a vacuum, they operate as part of a team, so there’s a concerted effort to suppress and roll back those SAMs. Cruise missiles, jamming, decoys and standoff weapons will all contribute toward that task. That being said, there is a pressing need for longer range from the fighter inventory in the long term as basing and advanced threats continue to push vulnerable support assets such as tankers further and further out from bad guy territory.

 
Broncazonk said:
Given the F-35's somewhat limited combat radius (F-35A = 585 miles) does the lack of a low observable (stealth) tanker fleet limit the effectiveness of the mission and the aircraft? (The same question goes for the F-22 which is even more range limited.) The S-500 SAM missile system will have an intercept range in excess of 350 miles.

Bronc

585 miles is limited? Compared to what?
 
Assuming 350 miles is a true range against an aircraft, as opposed to ballistic missile target, the F-35 should be plenty safe because I don't think it can fly high enough at that kind of range to even be seen by the S-500 radar. In any case, as is being pointed out F-35 range is pretty darn good for a single engine fighter and still much greater then the defending missile. As well, you don't expect a jet fighter to fly over a fully operational SAM site and drop a laser guided bomb on it, the fighter is going to employ its own missiles which increase its effective striking range in turn.
 
BDF said:
Well couple things: the long range missiles that give the S-400 and S-500 their vaunted range are very large and heavy missiles, they’re not well suited for engaging nimble targets like fighters.

That depends on which missile you're referring to. The S-500 will likely have a secondary S/A capacity but not a design capability, as it's designed as an ABM/ASAT weapon system. The S-400's big stick, the 40N6, is likely optimized for high-visibility targets like ISR platforms and AWACS...namely, things that are not going to be able to outmaneuver it, referred to as cooperative targets. These are what you're probably going to have a significant deal of inherited capability against with the S-500. For non-cooperative, i.e. fighter-type, maneuvering targets...the 48N6 series (the S-400 uses the 48N6DM to a range of 250 km) is fully capable of blowing one up at range thanks to kinetic energy retention at endgame and a ridiculously large warhead granting a significant kill radius.

Plus, standard firing doctrine is shoot-shoot-look, with two 48N6DMs per target. Watching intercept videos of earlier 48N6 rounds used by the S-300PM (SA-20 GARGOYLE) they even appear capable of employing two different paths to the target.

So, yeah...good luck with that.
 
SOC, that is one thing that always interested me - just how do S300 missiles do their kills? Am i right to assume that in order to achieve those 200+ km ranges they are basically lobbed through a depressed ballistic trajectory, in the general direction of the threat? And then in the near endgame (say a couple of dozen of km away from target) they are basically sliding down from up above, towards the target?


But we're still talking about 200 or so km travelled. There should be no more fuel left in them, don't they use up all their fuel in under 100 kms travelled? The TVC thrusters cant be used, right? So what is left is a thousand kg heavy missile (after it has used its fuel), going mach 5 or more, with a single set of relatively small fins that are long as half of diameter of the missile.


Compared to an average AAM, like amraam, which weighs maybe 100 kg at endgame, and has fins as wide as the whole body of the missile - what will be the difference in manouverability? The ratio of surface area of fins to mass of missile seems to be roughly double (little less) for amraam of what it is for 48n6 series missiles. Mass of air should be on s300's side, as the missile goes faster, but is it enough? what is endgame speed of 48n6 anyway? Shouldnt the highest speed be at engine cut off point and then as it goes down, no matter the gravity, it shouldnt be able to keep its 5-6 mach speed? Of course, sometimes its better to go slow if one wants to manouver. But maybe 48n6 isnt designed to manouver to get to the target in the first place...


As for the warhead, the larger sa-2 warhead was lethal between 65 and 250 meters away, depending was it low level flight or max altitude. At some 15 km altitude one could approximate near 200 m lethal radius. S300 have smaller warheads so perhaps 120-150m lethal radius is in order? Same kind of calculation would offer some 30-40 m lethal radius for amraam (as the lethality surely doesnt drop linearly with warhead mass) Comments? Corrections?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom