The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[quellish]

Pardon me, that would be like comparing the F-35 to the F-117:

Considering the F-35 is supposed to take over the penetrating precision strike role of the F-117, this is not a bad comparison.

 

[Thorvic]

Just wait until the DoD budget hits fiscal reality, with full rate production now not being funded until FY18/19 there is whole heap of time for the **** level to rise even without sequestration.

Yes.

This is something everyone keeps forgetting, even when I bring it up.

F-35 was supposed to be the cheap "get four for the price of one" alternative to the F-22. Now it's virtually as much as a F-22.

Which brings me to an interesting point. A lot of international partners want to get the F-35 at near promised prices of around $50-75 million; which is expensive, but not eyebleedingly expensive.

That kind of price reduction would only come about if several hundred get built first. But who buys the first several hundred aircraft with reduced early Block capabilities per dollar?

I suspect that the US will be stuck with quite a lot of the early production aircraft that we expensively remanufacture to later standards.

And their lies in the Catch-22, the cheaper aircraft will be the later production aircraft, but with full production not currently scheduled till 2018 those customers are going to be very deperate to start replacing their legacy aircraft that were due to be replaced this decade. Couple that with a production capacity of only upto 200 aircraft a year and a delayed US buy, that also needs to be caught up customers are going to be stuck between orderering sooner at a higher price for a gauranteed delivery or deferring for a cheaper price but then having to fit into later production slots with the extra cost of maintaining their legacey aircraft longer as a result.

 

[DD]

Just wait until the DoD budget hits fiscal reality, with full rate production now not being funded until FY18/19 there is whole heap of time for the **** level to rise even without sequestration.

Yes.

This is something everyone keeps forgetting, even when I bring it up.

F-35 was supposed to be the cheap "get four for the price of one" alternative to the F-22. Now it's virtually as much as a F-22.

Which brings me to an interesting point. A lot of international partners want to get the F-35 at near promised prices of around $50-75 million; which is expensive, but not eyebleedingly expensive.

That kind of price reduction would only come about if several hundred get built first. But who buys the first several hundred aircraft with reduced early Block capabilities per dollar?

I suspect that the US will be stuck with quite a lot of the early production aircraft that we expensively remanufacture to later standards.

And their lies in the Catch-22, the cheaper aircraft will be the later production aircraft, but with full production not currently scheduled till 2018 those customers are going to be very deperate to start replacing their legacy aircraft that were due to be replaced this decade. Couple that with a production capacity of only upto 200 aircraft a year and a delayed US buy, that also needs to be caught up customers are going to be stuck between orderering sooner at a higher price for a gauranteed delivery or deferring for a cheaper price but then having to fit into later production slots with the extra cost of maintaining their legacey aircraft longer as a result.

I find myself agreeing with these two posters.

The much acclaimed (and still rising) AURFC is just that - an average over the planned production number of some 2,443 units, IIRC, with the economy of scale benefits of the 'as planned' partner nation buys thrown in for good measure.

So don't expect to see any such unit recurring flyaway cost numbers till after production tail # 1,500 (if at all).

This is one of the many reasons why the JSF Program is being called a Ponzi scheme but, like all such schemes, those who fall victim to them don't see they have been defrauded and misled till it is too late.

One of the other tell tales is the URFC is only one of the many costs that go to make up the unit price for the aircraft.

In most jurisdictions around the Western world, representing one of the lesser costs of goods so as to encourage customers to infer that is the price is known as 'deceptive component pricing'.

 

[Sundog]

Then when the F-20 was cancelled they got rid of that variant of the F-16.

Eh what? There were almost 300 F-16 ADF conversions. They didn't necessarily stay in service for too long thanks to the USSR self-destructing (although I think some were still around until about 2007), but they certainly existed.

The version of the F-16 being proposed to go up against the F-5G/F-20 for the export market was the F-16 J79 which was only flown in prototype form.

I was referring to what they actually built in lieu of buying F-20s, not the export fighter competition itself.

 

[LowObservable]

Is the F-35 the first aircraft to encounter delays like the C-17? which again you posted as a model program?

The F-35 has accrued some pretty severe delays, and so did the C-17 - but the C-17 had a lot of delayed funding issues, and was only a model in the sense of turning around a failed program.

The range chart was from a Saab briefing. 2 x 450 gal tanks, 8 x SDBs, two IRIS-T AAMs. They may be telling porkies but that's not their track record.

Any nation that buys one gave up expeditionary warfare a long time ago.

Ask the commanders of the Libya op, where the Gripen pulled its weight as a recon asset. (C2 integration and Swedish political sensitivity were the reasons it did not do more.) Of course, no doubt it couldn't have been done without the expeditionary F-22 providing top cover. Wait, what?

The Gripen is great, but its not even in the same class as the F-35-- Its a second tier fighter.

Right, because the JSF has a higher top speed (plus supercruise), goes farther with the same load and has a more advanced radar and AAM fit than Gripen E/F.

Oh wait, I got that the wrong way around...

 

[sferrin]

Right, because the JSF has a higher top speed (plus supercruise), goes farther with the same load and has a more advanced radar and AAM fit than Gripen E/F.

Oh wait, I got that the wrong way around...

What's the Gripen's internal payload? What's it's RCS? Is it carrier capable? STOVL? "More advanced radar" ROFL!!!!!! How many 5000lb stores can it carry? What's it's max payload? What kind of EO DAS does it have?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Pardon me, that would be like comparing the F-35 to the F-117:

Considering the F-35 is supposed to take over the penetrating precision strike role of the F-117, this is not a bad comparison.

Actually it is for the same reason LO didn't like the F-20/Gripen comparison. Penetrating strike is just one JSF mission, plus it has a Radar, gun, sensor fusion, sensors that see 800 miles, ability to pull 9Gs... the list goes on.

The range chart was from a Saab briefing. 2 x 450 gal tanks, 8 x SDBs, two IRIS-T AAMs. They may be telling porkies but that's not their track record.

Was it the single or twin seat version? And you compared this with the JSF with two tanks two AAMS and 8 SDBs?

Any nation that buys one gave up expeditionary warfare a long time ago.

Ask the commanders of the Libya op, where the Gripen pulled its weight as a recon asset.

You mean that mission you are always saying UAVs should be flying?

I have said I like the Gripen. but its not a serious solution. its not a toy, but its not enough either. and once again It first came into service in 1997. Its just a giant distractor for you anyway LO. You can point to things the gripen does better, and I can point to things the F-35 does better. WE can go back and forth like this all day. And just to keep things fair, seeing as the NG isn't officially in service, nor is the carrier variant even in prototype form (as far as I know,) we are both betting on the future of unproven systems. I know, I know Saab can do nothing wrong, Lockheed nothing right, but they are different airplanes, different programs, different goals, for different customers.

So lets just say that the F-35 and Gripen NG are not in the same class. Which class is better, well thats your call, but they are not substitutions for each other, and the US would never ever buy any.

It is hilarious though to watch LO try and impart how much more advanced and better the NG is because it has all those useless sensors, advanced radars, etc. that warrant a second look compared to the older aircraft, and it should be so easily confused with its predecessors...welcome to my world.

 

[LowObservable]

Kidding aside, the F-35A has the potential to be a useful stealth strike aircraft.

On the other hand, it won't be with a 5000-pound weapon, because even if you were compatible with an EGBU-28, you'd have problems flying around with one of them, so you'd be on internal fuel ONLY, and the range is going to fall off a cliff with that kind of load, let alone with 18000 pounds of iron under those eedy-beedy wings.

Moreover, there's serious work under way on a CV Gripen, and it's designed to work all day off runways that are shorter than what the Marines envisage for F-35B operations.

Is it the answer for everyone? Not necessarily. Is it the toy that people like TT think? No way.

 

[GTX]

I don't know, people around here seem to be able to brag about an F-4-sized jet that can haul 2 x 1k bombs 450 nm

Though of course, one should maybe qualify this by stating that the jet referred to is a stealthy, Mach 1.6 capable, highly networked, highly capable sensor equipped platform that is carrying all weapons internally and which is STOVL capable! In other words, the F-35B. Moreover, although I will admit it is no lightweight, it certainly isn't as big (external dimensions) as an F-4. Now I might as easily as you, try to compare it to its true counterpart, i.e. the Harrier (rather then the Gripen as would seem to be being implied here), which IIRC only has a combat radius of ~300nm and is certainly nowhere near as capable as the F-35B... :

 

[GTX]

Kidding aside, the F-35A has the potential to be a useful stealth strike aircraft.

On the other hand, it won't be with a 5000-pound weapon, because even if you were compatible with an EGBU-28,

Yes, the F-35 will be a useful stealth strike aircraft plus much, much more.

Now as to the reference to 5000-pound weapons...please point to a platform planned to be in service in the future (other then the F-15E or strategic bombers) that can carry this weapon class? It seems to be a rather meaningless point to even raise in this debate...or is the F-35 now to be trashed because it can't carry this class of weapon??? Well, in that case, you better include the fact that it can't carry a squad of troops either... :

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I don't know, people around here seem to be able to brag about an F-4-sized jet that can haul 2 x 1k bombs 450 nm

Though of course, one should maybe qualify this by stating that the jet referred to is a stealthy, Mach 1.6 capable, highly networked, highly capable sensor equipped platform that is carrying all weapons internally and which is STOVL capable! In other words, the F-35B. Moreover, although I will admit it is no lightweight, it certainly isn't as big (external dimensions) as an F-4. Now I might as easily as you, try to compare it to its true counterpart, i.e. the Harrier (rather then the Gripen as would seem to be being implied here), which IIRC only has a combat radius of ~300nm and is certainly nowhere near as capable as the F-35B... :

Im not even going to worry about the Gripen. Even amongst European fighters it hasn't fared that great and the choice seems to be inevitably between the Rafale, and Typhoon. So beyond not being a JSF, its not even a Typhoon really.

 

[Arjen]

Now as to the reference to 5000-pound weapons...please point to a platform planned to be in service in the future (other then the F-15E or strategic bombers) that can carry this weapon class? It seems to be a rather meaningless point to even raise in this debate...

Why GTX, that would be rolling-onthe-floor-laughing sferrin who was making that particular 'meaningless point':

What's the Gripen's internal payload? What's it's RCS? Is it carrier capable? STOVL? "More advanced radar" ROFL!!!!!! How many 5000lb stores can it carry? What's it's max payload? What kind of EO DAS does it have?

I'm off now, I still have some urgent fluoride-spreading to do in the local water supply. And polish my detractor skills.

 

[bobbymike]

I don't know, people around here seem to be able to brag about an F-4-sized jet that can haul 2 x 1k bombs 450 nm

Though of course, one should maybe qualify this by stating that the jet referred to is a stealthy, Mach 1.6 capable, highly networked, highly capable sensor equipped platform that is carrying all weapons internally and which is STOVL capable! In other words, the F-35B. Moreover, although I will admit it is no lightweight, it certainly isn't as big (external dimensions) as an F-4. Now I might as easily as you, try to compare it to its true counterpart, i.e. the Harrier (rather then the Gripen as would seem to be being implied here), which IIRC only has a combat radius of ~300nm and is certainly nowhere near as capable as the F-35B... :

Im not even going to worry about the Gripen. Even amongst European fighters it hasn't fared that great and the choice seems to be inevitably between the Rafale, and Typhoon. So beyond not being a JSF, its not even a Typhoon really.

Actually DARPA is developing a 2000lbs penetrating weapon that will be as destructive as a 5000lbs bomb.

 

[quellish]

Now as to the reference to 5000-pound weapons...please point to a platform planned to be in service in the future (other then the F-15E or strategic bombers) that can carry this weapon class? It seems to be a rather meaningless point to even raise in this debate...or is the F-35 now to be trashed because it can't carry this class of weapon??? Well, in that case, you better include the fact that it can't carry a squad of troops either... :

The F-15E and B-2 are the only current platforms certified to carry the BLU-113 class weapons.

Apparently someone thinks this is not a meaningless point, as there is at least one program of record to create a new weapon with this capability for the F-35:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A049fca87-975d-454a-a2cb-fbdb096866b8

There are some truly fascinating papers on DTIC related to this.

 

[LowObservable]

Even amongst European fighters it hasn't fared that great and the choice seems to be inevitably between the Rafale, and Typhoon.

O rly? The Gnomes will make it five export air forces, plus the ETPS. That would seem to be 3x as many export operators as the other two put together.

 

[LowObservable]

...the Harrier (rather then the Gripen as would seem to be being implied here), which IIRC only has a combat radius of ~300nm

YDRC at all, but what's new?

How about 575 nm with 4 x 1000 lb bombs, and including a low-altitude attack?
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/av-8b.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

Now as to the reference to 5000-pound weapons...please point to a platform planned to be in service in the future (other then the F-15E or strategic bombers) that can carry this weapon class? It seems to be a rather meaningless point to even raise in this debate...or is the F-35 now to be trashed because it can't carry this class of weapon??? Well, in that case, you better include the fact that it can't carry a squad of troops either... :

The F-15E and B-2 are the only current platforms certified to carry the BLU-113 class weapons.

Apparently someone thinks this is not a meaningless point, as there is at least one program of record to create a new weapon with this capability for the F-35:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A049fca87-975d-454a-a2cb-fbdb096866b8

There are some truly fascinating papers on DTIC related to this.

Please provide links to these papers, much appreciated!

 

[quellish]

highly networked, highly capable sensor equipped platform

For the F-35, they have basically two options for exchanging information:
- Link-16 (limiting, and easy to detect)
- MADL (LPI, better bandwidth)

The problem with MADL though is that only other F-35s are going to have it so far. Which is pretty much the same situation as the F-22's LPI data links. It was proposed that the F-22 get MADL to share information with F-35s, but that hasn't gotten anywhere. Even installing MADL on a BACN wouldn't really solve the problem, as BACN would still have to translate and retransmit over Link-16.

So this highly stealthy networked platform can be:
- Stealthy, but only networked with nodes of the same type (i.e. other F-35s)
OR
- Non stealthy, but can share *some* information with everybody

Which, again, is somewhat the same situation the F-22 is in. Didn't something similar happen with the B-2? Super secure data links, but nothing to talk to?

 

[sferrin]

Kidding aside, the F-35A has the potential to be a useful stealth strike aircraft.

On the other hand, it won't be with a 5000-pound weapon, because even if you were compatible with an EGBU-28,

Yes, the F-35 will be a useful stealth strike aircraft plus much, much more.

Now as to the reference to 5000-pound weapons...please point to a platform planned to be in service in the future (other then the F-15E or strategic bombers) that can carry this weapon class? It seems to be a rather meaningless point to even raise in this debate...or is the F-35 now to be trashed because it can't carry this class of weapon??? Well, in that case, you better include the fact that it can't carry a squad of troops either... :

The two inboard pylons on the F-35 are rated at 5000lbs. Same as the F-15E's inboard pylons.

 

[SOC]

Kidding aside, the F-35A has the potential to be a useful stealth strike aircraft.

In five years "stealthy" is not necessarily going to mean "survivable" anymore, unless you're a B-2.

This is the problem of the current situation. We bomb the snot out of nations with laughable air defense networks (and this includes Iraq in 1991, despite what the media was going on about like abject fools) and pretty much own the airspace over their territory within days or hours. Then you have Russia and China demonstrating a degree of understanding of LO technology with the PAK-FA and the J-20. The real lesson of those two platforms isn't that they can make some sort of Raptor equivalent or whatever. It's that they have an understanding of signature reduction. Guess what: that works backwards. If you can build an LO platform, you can work out how to find one more effectively. The Nebo-M and a host of other Chinese or Russian digital VHF-band radars are designed to do precisely that, and have matured to the point that they have resolution cells that were unheard of 15 or 20 years ago. With your own LO technology base to play with, you can make even more effective sensors. It's not a suprise that Syria began importing Chinese radars and Russian SAMs while we were going around bombing their neighbors: they saw the writing on the wall, reliance on ancient technology makes your stuff dead. With China and Russia the primary exporters of toys to regimes that fall under the threat identifier, their development of LO and counter LO technology is very significant.

If you subscribe to the idea that Russia and the PRC are some sort of actual military threat (politically, not technologically), relying on fighter-size LO platforms like the JSF is not necessarily going to do you a hell of a lot of good. Then you're admitting that the JSF is designed specifically for small conflicts facing Soviet-legacy IADS like those in Syria, Iran, or the DPRK. And now we come to the real issue: on no planet will a limited regional conflict with one (or even all three concurrently) of those smaller states require thousands of JSFs. Hell, the extant Raptor fleet would be enough to take down their networks, probably even all at once when you factor in the obligatory supporting TLAM salvoes.

The JSF might work great at the end of the day. It might be everything that it's purported to be. It'll still be a colossal waste of money given that it will not represent a survivable platform over anyone operating a truly modern IADS backed by the latest digital VHF-band radars. Neither will the F-22, neither will the mythical 6th Generation fighter. At this point, you have to ask why. Granted, many of the significant sensor developments took place well after initiation of the F-22 or JSF programs. This does not mean that driving an F-35 over Moscow is in any way a bright idea. Nor does it mean that if we continue the status quo regarding weapons distribution around the globe, the bad guys are going to remain stupid.

 

[sferrin]

Kidding aside, the F-35A has the potential to be a useful stealth strike aircraft.

In five years "stealthy" is not necessarily going to mean "survivable" anymore, unless you're a B-2.

This is the problem of the current situation. We bomb the snot out of nations with laughable air defense networks (and this includes Iraq in 1991, despite what the media was going on about like abject fools) and pretty much own the airspace over their territory within days or hours. Then you have Russia and China demonstrating a degree of understanding of LO technology with the PAK-FA and the J-20. The real lesson of those two platforms isn't that they can make some sort of Raptor equivalent or whatever. It's that they have an understanding of signature reduction. Guess what: that works backwards. If you can build an LO platform, you can work out how to find one more effectively. The Nebo-M and a host of other Chinese or Russian digital VHF-band radars are designed to do precisely that, and have matured to the point that they have resolution cells that were unheard of 15 or 20 years ago. With your own LO technology base to play with, you can make even more effective sensors. It's not a suprise that Syria began importing Chinese radars and Russian SAMs while we were going around bombing their neighbors: they saw the writing on the wall, reliance on ancient technology makes your stuff dead. With China and Russia the primary exporters of toys to regimes that fall under the threat identifier, their development of LO and counter LO technology is very significant.

If you subscribe to the idea that Russia and the PRC are some sort of actual military threat (politically, not technologically), relying on fighter-size LO platforms like the JSF is not necessarily going to do you a hell of a lot of good. Then you're admitting that the JSF is designed specifically for small conflicts facing Soviet-legacy IADS like those in Syria, Iran, or the DPRK. And now we come to the real issue: on no planet will a limited regional conflict with one (or even all three concurrently) of those smaller states require thousands of JSFs. Hell, the extant Raptor fleet would be enough to take down their networks, probably even all at once when you factor in the obligatory supporting TLAM salvoes.

The JSF might work great at the end of the day. It might be everything that it's purported to be. It'll still be a colossal waste of money given that it will not represent a survivable platform over anyone operating a truly modern IADS backed by the latest digital VHF-band radars. Neither will the F-22, neither will the mythical 6th Generation fighter. At this point, you have to ask why. Granted, many of the significant sensor developments took place well after initiation of the F-22 or JSF programs. This does not mean that driving an F-35 over Moscow is in any way a bright idea. Nor does it mean that if we continue the status quo regarding weapons distribution around the globe, the bad guys are going to remain stupid.

I wonder how long it will be before we hear "speed is life" once again.

 

[SOC]

I wonder how long it will be before we hear "speed is life" once again.

Speed is like Popeye's chicken: more is better. The Blackbird was damn near impossible to hit with an SA-2 because of it's combination of speed and altitude made a mockery of the GUIDELINE's reaction time. Speed also gives your weapons more kE: hence more range for an AAM or more penetrating power for an ASM or unpowered bomb. The problem nowadays is that SAMs also recognize the awesomeness of speed. The 48N6 is a Mach 6 weapon, the 9M82/3 doing Mach 8 or better. That screws with YOUR reaction time, especially if they refrain from zeroing in on you with a high-precision tracking beam until endgame. At that point, your reaction time and your maneuverability is irrelevant in the face of a much faster SAM with an obnoxiously large directional warhead.

At the rate air defenses are evolving traditional air combat could become unsustainable within twenty years. Maybe sooner. Hey, look, a thesis statement! October or November may be interesting B)

 

[quellish]

Please provide links to these papers, much appreciated!

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adtic.mil%20%22High%20Velocity%20Penetrating%20Weapon%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[sferrin]

I wonder how long it will be before we hear "speed is life" once again.

Speed is like Popeye's chicken: more is better. The Blackbird was damn near impossible to hit with an SA-2 because of it's combination of speed and altitude made a mockery of the GUIDELINE's reaction time. Speed also gives your weapons more kE: hence more range for an AAM or more penetrating power for an ASM or unpowered bomb. The problem nowadays is that SAMs also recognize the awesomeness of speed. The 48N6 is a Mach 6 weapon, the 9M82/3 doing Mach 8 or better. That screws with YOUR reaction time, especially if they refrain from zeroing in on you with a high-precision tracking beam until endgame. At that point, your reaction time and your maneuverability is irrelevant in the face of a much faster SAM with an obnoxiously large directional warhead.

At the rate air defenses are evolving traditional air combat could become unsustainable within twenty years. Maybe sooner. Hey, look, a thesis statement! October or November may be interesting B)

Or. . . everybody's back on the deck again. I imagine even today a Project Pluto would be difficult to deal with, especially if AWACS is taken out.

edit: I also wonder how much energy you'd have to put on a SAM to cause the airframe to fail. If one had a central beam generator and piped it to emitters around the aircraft via fiber optic. . . (how much energy can a single fiber carry without failing?)

 

[bobbymike]

I wonder how long it will be before we hear "speed is life" once again.

Speed is like Popeye's chicken: more is better. The Blackbird was damn near impossible to hit with an SA-2 because of it's combination of speed and altitude made a mockery of the GUIDELINE's reaction time. Speed also gives your weapons more kE: hence more range for an AAM or more penetrating power for an ASM or unpowered bomb. The problem nowadays is that SAMs also recognize the awesomeness of speed. The 48N6 is a Mach 6 weapon, the 9M82/3 doing Mach 8 or better. That screws with YOUR reaction time, especially if they refrain from zeroing in on you with a high-precision tracking beam until endgame. At that point, your reaction time and your maneuverability is irrelevant in the face of a much faster SAM with an obnoxiously large directional warhead.

At the rate air defenses are evolving traditional air combat could become unsustainable within twenty years. Maybe sooner. Hey, look, a thesis statement! October or November may be interesting B)

Wonder in 20 years if we are back to 'flying fortresses' but with multiple solid state lasers instead of gun stations?

 

[quellish]

In five years "stealthy" is not necessarily going to mean "survivable" anymore, unless you're a B-2.

This is the problem of the current situation. We bomb the snot out of nations with laughable air defense networks (and this includes Iraq in 1991, despite what the media was going on about like abject fools) and pretty much own the airspace over their territory within days or hours. Then you have Russia and China demonstrating a degree of understanding of LO technology with the PAK-FA and the J-20. The real lesson of those two platforms isn't that they can make some sort of Raptor equivalent or whatever. It's that they have an understanding of signature reduction.

The physics involved is pretty straightforward. The infrastructure required to get significant reductions - developing expertise in the relevant areas of simulation, testing, manufacturing, and maintenance - is not trivial. In flight RCS measurement, for example, is a capability not many nations have right now.

Guess what: that works backwards. If you can build an LO platform, you can work out how to find one more effectively.

Not necessarily. Again, the physics are pretty straightforward for detecting a VLO aircraft. Use a frequency that the aircraft was not designed to counter, etc. etc. A number of countries could assemble a useful over the horizon backscatter radar that would detect a VLO aircraft.
Finding one, however, is not the same as hitting one. A low frequency radar (like an over the horizon radar) isn't going provide a solution good enough for a kill, and in most cases wouldn't be able to get a SAM close enough to a VLO target for a high frequency terminal homing system to be effective.

However, the F-35 has Magical Stealth Juice, and cannot be detected or killed by conventional systems. Period.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Kidding aside, the F-35A has the potential to be a useful stealth strike aircraft.

In five years "stealthy" is not necessarily going to mean "survivable" anymore, unless you're a B-2.

This is the problem of the current situation. We bomb the snot out of nations with laughable air defense networks (and this includes Iraq in 1991, despite what the media was going on about like abject fools) and pretty much own the airspace over their territory within days or hours. Then you have Russia and China demonstrating a degree of understanding of LO technology with the PAK-FA and the J-20. The real lesson of those two platforms isn't that they can make some sort of Raptor equivalent or whatever. It's that they have an understanding of signature reduction. Guess what: that works backwards. If you can build an LO platform, you can work out how to find one more effectively. The Nebo-M and a host of other Chinese or Russian digital VHF-band radars are designed to do precisely that, and have matured to the point that they have resolution cells that were unheard of 15 or 20 years ago. With your own LO technology base to play with, you can make even more effective sensors. It's not a suprise that Syria began importing Chinese radars and Russian SAMs while we were going around bombing their neighbors: they saw the writing on the wall, reliance on ancient technology makes your stuff dead. With China and Russia the primary exporters of toys to regimes that fall under the threat identifier, their development of LO and counter LO technology is very significant.

If you subscribe to the idea that Russia and the PRC are some sort of actual military threat (politically, not technologically), relying on fighter-size LO platforms like the JSF is not necessarily going to do you a hell of a lot of good. Then you're admitting that the JSF is designed specifically for small conflicts facing Soviet-legacy IADS like those in Syria, Iran, or the DPRK. And now we come to the real issue: on no planet will a limited regional conflict with one (or even all three concurrently) of those smaller states require thousands of JSFs. Hell, the extant Raptor fleet would be enough to take down their networks, probably even all at once when you factor in the obligatory supporting TLAM salvoes.

The JSF might work great at the end of the day. It might be everything that it's purported to be. It'll still be a colossal waste of money given that it will not represent a survivable platform over anyone operating a truly modern IADS backed by the latest digital VHF-band radars. Neither will the F-22, neither will the mythical 6th Generation fighter. At this point, you have to ask why. Granted, many of the significant sensor developments took place well after initiation of the F-22 or JSF programs. This does not mean that driving an F-35 over Moscow is in any way a bright idea. Nor does it mean that if we continue the status quo regarding weapons distribution around the globe, the bad guys are going to remain stupid.

So we have LO saying air defenses are nothing to worry about and F-22s have little utility and you saying Air defenses will dominate, but not an F-22 or B-2 with which is jsut above 200 aircraft total-- I didn't know we could destroy the super powers with around 200 aircraft and cruise missiles. Boy did I have it wrong!! Did I mention the SAMs can kill all stealth aircraft but not TLAMs? That makes total sense. We have really been overspending.

 

[quellish]

So we have LO saying air defenses are nothing to worry about and F-22s have little utility and you saying Air defenses will dominate, but not an F-22 or B-2 with which is jsut above 200 aircraft total-- I didn't know we could destroy the super powers with around 200 aircraft and cruise missiles. Boy did I have it wrong!! Did I mention the SAMs can kill all stealth aircraft but not TLAMs? That makes total sense. We have really been overspending.

The TLAMs will be retired early and are being replaced by the F-35.

 

[LowObservable]

Defeating an IADS built around an S-400 is not easy. However, such weapons are not invincible and have vulnerabilities:
- they are not effective when they are moving (so keeping them moving = suppression)
- they stick out like the proverbial canine reproductive organs on SAR when they are at the ready
- they are never going to be very far from a road
- their radars can be located with targeting-grade accuracy as soon as they transmit
- they take a certain amount of time to pack up and roll
- they are soft targets vulnerable to small submunitions
I can think of a few ways to exploit those weaknesses. Few if any of them are dependent on having a JSF-type system.

 

[sferrin]

So we have LO saying air defenses are nothing to worry about and F-22s have little utility and you saying Air defenses will dominate, but not an F-22 or B-2 with which is jsut above 200 aircraft total-- I didn't know we could destroy the super powers with around 200 aircraft and cruise missiles. Boy did I have it wrong!! Did I mention the SAMs can kill all stealth aircraft but not TLAMs? That makes total sense. We have really been overspending.

The TLAMs will be retired early and are being replaced by the F-35.

They're going to fire F-35s out of MK41 VLS?

 

[sferrin]

I can think of a few ways to exploit those weaknesses. Few if any of them are dependent on having a JSF-type system.

And the F-35 would be able to do "those things" better than your 4th gen because with the smaller RCS it'll be able to get closer without being compromised.

 

[LowObservable]

And the F-35 would be able to do "those things" better than your 4th gen because with the smaller RCS it'll be able to get closer without being compromised.

Only if I wanted fighters to get "close" (which has a lot of definitions - JDAM-range, SDB-range, A2SM-range?) in the first place. By the way, another limitation-set of SAMs is that there will never be an infinite number of systems and that they don't move very fast (much less mobile than a ship-based system, for instance) so they cannot concentrate force as an airborne system can.

 

[JFC Fuller]

And the F-35 would be able to do "those things" better than your 4th gen because with the smaller RCS it'll be able to get closer without being compromised.

But RCS is only going to be one facet of that survivability. RCS reduction on the F-35 will give a give a reduced detection range against an active RF sensor (radar) but it will still be detectable at shorter ranges- especially against more modern radars. The F-35 will still have to manage its own emissions to prevent passive RF detection and will still have to rely on an extensive EW suite (currently being developed by BAE). Both the USN and the USMC are looking network invasion as both a credible threat and a credible means of attack with NGJ to have a network invasion tool and Gen. Carter talking about the need to switch off aircraft receivers as well as transmitters to prevent such an attack. F-35 is still going to rely on situational awareness, hopefully including real-time, to avoid having to fly straight through an AD system, and will also use terrain to help with that.

The RCS reduction has been used by the involved programme parties as the rallying flag to justify the programme but its really no more or less important than the networking, EW suite and on-board sensors. RCS reduction is not a Panacea for the F-35 (like it was for the F-117 and B-2), it is just another tool in a very large toolbox.

 

[sferrin]

And the F-35 would be able to do "those things" better than your 4th gen because with the smaller RCS it'll be able to get closer without being compromised.

But RCS is only going to be one facet of that survivability. RCS reduction on the F-35 will give a give a reduced detection range against an active RF sensor (radar) but it will still be detectable at shorter ranges- especially against more modern radars. The F-35 will still have to manage its own emissions to prevent passive RF detection and will still have to rely on an extensive EW suite (currently being developed by BAE). Both the USN and the USMC are looking network invasion as both a credible threat and a credible means of attack with NGJ to have a network invasion tool and Gen. Carter talking about the need to switch off aircraft receivers as well as transmitters to prevent such an attack. F-35 is still going to rely on situational awareness, hopefully including real-time, to avoid having to fly straight through an AD system, and will also use terrain to help with that.

The RCS reduction has been used by the involved programme parties as the rallying flag to justify the programme but its really no more or less important than the networking, EW suite and on-board sensors. RCS reduction is not a Panacea for the F-35 (like it was for the F-117 and B-2), it is just another tool in a very large toolbox.

Never claimed or implied it was magic. Just that it was a very valuable "tool" in the toolbox.

 

[LowObservable]

So if stealth is not magic, or at least sufficient on its own to ensure survival, surely this statement is hyperbolic:

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again." (Emphasis added.)

 

[bobbymike]

And the F-35 would be able to do "those things" better than your 4th gen because with the smaller RCS it'll be able to get closer without being compromised.

But RCS is only going to be one facet of that survivability. RCS reduction on the F-35 will give a give a reduced detection range against an active RF sensor (radar) but it will still be detectable at shorter ranges- especially against more modern radars. The F-35 will still have to manage its own emissions to prevent passive RF detection and will still have to rely on an extensive EW suite (currently being developed by BAE). Both the USN and the USMC are looking network invasion as both a credible threat and a credible means of attack with NGJ to have a network invasion tool and Gen. Carter talking about the need to switch off aircraft receivers as well as transmitters to prevent such an attack. F-35 is still going to rely on situational awareness, hopefully including real-time, to avoid having to fly straight through an AD system, and will also use terrain to help with that.

The RCS reduction has been used by the involved programme parties as the rallying flag to justify the programme but its really no more or less important than the networking, EW suite and on-board sensors. RCS reduction is not a Panacea for the F-35 (like it was for the F-117 and B-2), it is just another tool in a very large toolbox.

Never claimed or implied it was magic. Just that it was a very valuable "tool" in the toolbox.

Not much discussion of where MALD fits into this concept of operations? I don't believe I know of any other nation, by itself, that can fight and win with a huge array of systems against anti-access areas than the US at this point.

 

[sferrin]

So if stealth is not magic, or at least sufficient on its own to ensure survival, surely this statement is hyperbolic:

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again." (Emphasis added.)

I did not say it wasn't "at least sufficient on its own to ensure survival". But if the US wants to take a "belt and suspenders" approach that's their perogative. And you still haven't shown how an aircraft that REQUIRES ECM to have a hope of surviving (i.e. the 4th gen) is more survivable than a stealth aircraft wherein ECM merely makes it all the more difficult to target.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I did not say it wasn't "at least sufficient on its own to ensure survival". But if the US wants to take a "belt and suspenders" approach that's their perogative. And you still haven't shown how an aircraft that REQUIRES ECM to have a hope of surviving (i.e. the 4th gen) is more survivable than a stealth aircraft wherein ECM merely makes it all the more difficult to target.

By the time F-35 is in service it is going to need EW if it wants to play in an advanced IADS environment- that is why EW is being integrated into the airframe and avionics from the outset. The point of the F-35 is that penetrating an advanced IADS environment is going to to require the totality of the aircraft's capabilities in equal measure as well as those of other assets with which the aircraft is networked.

 

[sferrin]

I did not say it wasn't "at least sufficient on its own to ensure survival". But if the US wants to take a "belt and suspenders" approach that's their perogative. And you still haven't shown how an aircraft that REQUIRES ECM to have a hope of surviving (i.e. the 4th gen) is more survivable than a stealth aircraft wherein ECM merely makes it all the more difficult to target.

By the time F-35 is in service it is going to need EW if it wants to play in an advanced IADS environment- that is why EW is being integrated into the airframe and avionics from the outset. The point of the F-35 is that penetrating an advanced IADS environment is going to to require the totality of the aircraft's capabilities in equal measure as well as those of other assets with which the aircraft is networked.

Imagine how much more difficult it will be for a non-stealth aircraft.

 

[LowObservable]

Actually, it's quite possible that a fighter with F-35-level stealth will be able to get closer to a sensor without being detected, tracked and targeted than a reduced-RCS type with good onboard EW.

The question is how big the difference is; whether it's worth the cost in money, other aspects of performance, or through-life and cross-mission adaptability; and whether, given the cost, there are better ways to do the mission.