latenlazy said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
Kinematics are great, but that all falls apart if you're getting AMRAAMs and Meteors out of the blue. The PAKFA, SU-35s type planes will lose this advantage if they take evasive action. How can they use their kinematic advantage (over an F35 type) in a tactically sound way? How do they even know which direction to fly in?
Adding in now the system of systems philosophy, or NCW, of the US/Western forces in general, there is just no comparison. Situational awareness is everything. This has been manifestly evident at least since the first gulf war.
Imagine if I tried to promote a new fighter for the USAF and international customers by saying that, yes, it will get shot at first, but it will always be able to dodge the missile, close to WVR and there defeat the opponent. I don't think that would go very far.
In LO vs LO combat BVR could be neutralized though. I think that's where kinematics takes over. The direction of an approaching weapon usually gives you a decently good idea of the direction you would expect your opponent to be in. That would be where one would focus their sensors.
When you're receiving inbound AAMs, your situational awareness is bound to go in the toilet as you try to maneuver. There are videos of F16s dodging SAMS out there. You can tell from the chatter that it's not a good situation to be in from an SA standpoint. That's usually what happens to a pilot in that situation. It's not the best time to target your opponent. You lose your energy pretty comprehensively taking evasive action and then if you make it to the merge you will have to worry about HOBS missiles cued by HMCS. I just can't help but conclude that missile kinematics and sensor quality, ECM, etc are going to trump platform kinematics...including in close in fighting. Dodging helmet-cued AIM-9X sounds pretty scary to me.
If you have MAWS or EODAS, you have some warning of the AAM on it's way in. If not, you won't necessarily know until the seeker head goes active. I'd assume that the PAKFA, J20 etc have pretty good MAWS systems, but it's not really true that this gives you a good idea where the opponent is.
I agree with the thrust of your point that the playing field will be levelled by opposing 5th gen fighters, but in this instance the level of system integration and quality of the system (meaning the AWACS, APG-81 and NGJ jamming, AEGIS, F22, EA18G, NGJ, MALD-J, E-2D, the whole network), level of VLO, EW, tactics, weapons kinematics, intelligence, data links, data sharing, tanker support, sensor quality will be at least as decisive (in my opinion more decisive) than platform kinematics.
This in no way should be taken as an argument that kinematic capability is not useful. The J20, PAKFA, F/A-XX, F-22 all can leverage their altitude, supercruise etc in effective ways, but once one of these fighters has to avoid an incoming missile their energy advantage is damaged. It's not like they're only going to get 1 missile inbound every time. Why not keep firing? The advantage of having an F35 in numbers to complement the F22, or F/A-XX, like the hordes of F16s backing the F15C/Ds in earlier times, is that you can have numbers as well as quality. Sacrifices were made to raw performance in the 35, in exchange for better SA, tri-service compatibility, allied needs, VLO stealth etc. The choice to sacrifice some performance was the right choice, in my opinion. For the F/A-XX, those restrictions don't apply at all and it will excel as a high end naval fighter in performance, stealth and sensors.....but you don't have the benefit of economies of scale, raw numbers, flexibility and interoperability with the F/A-XX. The F35 program gets a very capable asset into the hands of a lot of allies, and the 3 flying US services in a way that wouldn't be possible if the right compromises weren't made.
With the F35 in the Pacific for instance, there are potentially going to be really large numbers of them, operating off of land, carrier and VTOL capable ships as well. In US hands and allied nations as well. You can't get that many F/A-XX, or F22...I'm pretty sure of that. To counter this, the Chinese should invest in not just the J20, but also the J31 or something of it's type that can be acquired in large numbers and they should (I'm sure they are doing this) knit it all together into a cohesive system of systems. I'm sure the J20 is the more costly high end system, right? Will there be 300? Or less? If you have 1500 J31, flying off of ships and shore, you have a more effective force. You can saturate the enemies defenses, attack more targets, share more info, generate more sorties etc. There are advantages. Of course, ideally there should be lots F15s and 16s/18s in the near future, some F22s, strategic bombers.
This is an F/A-XX thread after all. The Navy recognizes the need for a higher performing platform. It has a role in the future. I agree. In the future. It's apples and oranges comparing it with the 35 anyway. Different roles. The Navy is just worried the the F35 will suck up their F/A-XX funding. It's political to a large degree. With the USN we'll have to wait till they start to operate the C before we know how they really feel about it.