The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[kcran567]

I agree, the other posters started the attacks first if you read the prior posts

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

last time i checked, this thread was informative

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Now of course if we don't worry about the need to hover and if the frontal RCS issue with the mid mounted engine were all taken care of then even the 'conventional' production version of the F-32 'Phantom III' could have been a winner no matter how ugly it was.

True, but without the whole STOVL requirement, it would have been better if both companies started with a clean sheet of paper. In my opinion the STOVL requirement resulted in many compromises for the conventional aircraft.

 

[LowObservable]

Excuse me, did someone mention eight internal AAMs on the JSF? And did I see someone imply a Pk of 1.0?

So far, the maximum number with money and a near-firm date behind it is four. Six has been talked about, date TBD, not aware of any related hardware being designed or tested.

And as CM points out, the manoeuvring-is-irrelevant EO-DAS argument depends on having an internal missile which can prosecute a high-off-boresight, close-in engagement, which is exactly what an AMRAAM is not designed to do. And even an ASRAAM on the current missile stations will be in the less than ideal LOAL mode because most of the seeker field-of-regard is blocked by the airframe. (See the F-22 AIM-9 bays for comparison.)

For the F-35, success in air combat will depend on closing undetected to a range where AMRAAM has a high Pk against a target that can detect and locate the launch, jam, decoy and evade (all of which a Su-35S will do quite well).

 

[donnage99]

Its not stupid to think that that a small number of $80 million dollar f-35's are going to be up against large numbers of cheaper fighter aircraft.

You still live in that world of $500 hammers and gold toilet seats i guess. Must be nice there. Tahts alright enjoy it while it lasts.

And the gun with thrust vectoring will solve that problem : The most maneuverable aircraft with a gun will most certainly eat a missile and another with HOBS close range missiles before his aircraft close in enough for the gun to be accurate and his nose to point toward the enemy.

Wait! Didn't you say you suggest of a battle between both parties out of missiles and down to their guns? Then how does f-35 vs horde of cheaper aircraft fit into this? Still hiding behind the bush anymore?

All sarcasm aside, your argument has a fundamental flaw, in which it is ignorant of the fact that just because you have 200 aircraft on the airfield doesn't mean you can launch them up in the air. The reality of air to air engagement today is too complex for the kind of WWII inspired star war film air battles with loads of aircraft flying and battling everywhere. Without an effective information gathering and battle management assets and systems that link and connect different assets, launching the kind of horde of aircraft is impossible. This is the reason why only the US has the capacity to launch the kind of Red Flag air war practice, even though it's not the only country with an air force consisted of more than a hundred aircraft.

 

[donnage99]

And even an ASRAAM on the current missile stations will be in the less than ideal LOAL mode because most of the seeker field-of-regard is blocked by the airframe.

Blocked by airframe? Yes. but that's what the EODAS is for, right? EODAS, which is unrestricted in field of regard, guides it until its LOAL kicks in.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Excuse me, did someone mention eight internal AAMs on the JSF? And did I see someone imply a Pk of 1.0?

So far, the maximum number with money and a near-firm date behind it is four. Six has been talked about, date TBD, not aware of any related hardware being designed or tested.

The four internal hardpoints is the SDD F-35 but there is obviously a lot more volume in there for more. AFRL have designed concepts for four AMRAAM sized missile hardpoints per bay (total eight). But because SDD is constrained to the original spec it won’t be developed until after SDD ends (2012) and follow on development begins. You will see eight missile F-35s in service pretty quickly from this date.

Since we are talking about something as hypothetical as the F-35 flying against very large numbers of FLANKER/T-50s that haven’t even been built, ordered or imagined by regimes with such spare funds one is safe to assume a certain leeway in the date of this imaginary furball. But of course this may be counter to the dominant lee giving ideology of the anti-F-35 crusade which is all about minimising and ignoring the capability of the F-35 while exaggerating those of its rivals.

And as CM points out, the manoeuvring-is-irrelevant EO-DAS argument depends on having an internal missile which can prosecute a high-off-boresight, close-in engagement, which is exactly what an AMRAAM is not designed to do. And even an ASRAAM on the current missile stations will be in the less than ideal LOAL mode because most of the seeker field-of-regard is blocked by the airframe. (See the F-22 AIM-9 bays for comparison.)

Well considering that LOAL HOBS missiles are already in service and EODAS is not blocked by any airframe it’s a pretty good fact to depend an argument on. Used to be a time when people were screaming you could never fire a machinegun straight forward from a tractor aircraft because it would cut the prop off… I would imagine some of those luddites were still screaming long after the interrupter was in service that what the Red Baron and co. were doing was impossible.

As to airframe blocking the seeker head for LOAL that kind of doesn’t apply to Lock On After Launch (LOAL)… Even in the tightest turn after launch profile the missile achieves enough separation from the launching aircraft to unmask its seeker head towards any blindspot behind the aircraft. Maybe you were thinking of Laugh Out Loud? What I do whenever this recycled Air Power Australia (APA) nonsense is trotted out…

For the F-35, success in air combat will depend on closing undetected to a range where AMRAAM has a high Pk against a target that can detect and locate the launch, jam, decoy and evade (all of which a Su-35S will do quite well).

LOL the FLANKER kills all. In the words of Jerry Seinfeld: “That is one magic loogie…”

 

[kcran567]

Donnage and others I agree that the f-35 is going to operate in a totally new way, nobody knows until it flies actual missions, I'm just asking the question to find where its weaknesses may be.

Remember the point Boyd was making to avoid the spiral of increasing complexity, cost, and weight in a fighter aircraft.

The other point people are making is that the "f-35 will just keep going, and keep its energy advantage"

But it wasnt built to supercruise like a f-22.

 

[Trident]

As to airframe blocking the seeker head for LOAL that kind of doesn’t apply to Lock On After Launch (LOAL)… Even in the tightest turn after launch profile the missile achieves enough separation from the launching aircraft to unmask its seeker head towards any blindspot behind the aircraft.

I think the point was that LOBL is always preferable to LOAL, not that LOAL wouldn't work on the F-35 (it will, of course). In the kind of close-in turning fight that would require maneuvering according to the old paradigms the F-22 certainly has the advantage thanks to its bay configuration. Pretty much any target in the forward hemisphere could be engaged in LOBL mode, while in many cases the F-35 would be forced to use LOAL mode due to airframe masking.

 

[LowObservable]

I must say I haven't seen those AFRL 8-missile concepts. Yes, the bays are deeper than the six-AMRAAM F-22 bays but not as wide. Those would be interesting concepts to see.

Could you also specify which LOAL HOBS missiles are in service in the "furball" mode? AMRAAM has a HOBS capability and is LOAL, but that is a longer-range weapon so the tracking rates are not as critically high.

Sure, EODAS + AIM-9X Block II with a datalink gives you LOAL - but it's rail-launched, so no internal carriage on JSF as yet.

I don't think this is intended as another APA debate. If there are not going to be significant T-50/Su-35S-class threats in the early years of JSF full operational capability (FOC will be about 2018 with the USAF if all goes well) then I wonder why we are building it anyway.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Could you also specify which LOAL HOBS missiles are in service in the "furball" mode? AMRAAM has a HOBS capability and is LOAL, but that is a longer-range weapon so the tracking rates are not as critically high.

First in-service LOAL HOBS shot and hit by a RAAF F/A-18A HUG with an AIM-132A ASRAAM announced in March 2009. The over the shoulder HOBS shot used HMD to track the target and software/data link cueing of the missile to achieved LOAL and interception at a range of over 5km.

Sure, EODAS + AIM-9X Block II with a datalink gives you LOAL - but it's rail-launched, so no internal carriage on JSF as yet.

Which is why there is ASRAAM, AMRAAM-Delta and in the future JDRADM.

I don't think this is intended as another APA debate. If there are not going to be significant T-50/Su-35S-class threats in the early years of JSF full operational capability (FOC will be about 2018 with the USAF if all goes well) then I wonder why we are building it anyway.

Yet the only people saying the Su-35S can do what you suggest it is APA. You need to believe their assumptions before you can say things like the Su-35S can detect and defeat F-35 engagements except some close in ambush. Further what evidence is there to suggest either aircraft (T-50 and Su-35S) will be in squadron service by 2020? Two of the most notoriously acquisition delaying countries (Russia and India) making ambitious schedule claims at extremely early dates in the development cycle for aircraft being delivered by a funds starved enterprise…

The F-35 is being designed around a lethality system which approaches air combat in a different way to legacy aircraft. While this may be as hard to understand for some as those WW2 pilots who thought you could never kill another fighter with something too fast like a jet once you have absorbed the new tactics of doing things you find it is far more lethal against the legacy aircraft.

 

[LowObservable]

Thanks for reminding me of the ASRAAM test, Can ASRAAM do this from an ejector launch?

Is ASRAAM still in productiion? In that case most JSFs will still rely on AIM-120, which even in D model is not designed for close-in combat. And what is JDRADM and when will it be around?

And I don't see (given the above) your problem with the statement that "For the F-35, success in air combat will depend on closing undetected to a range where AMRAAM has a high Pk against a target that can detect and locate the launch, jam, decoy and evade (all of which a Su-35S will do quite well)".

If the F-35 can do that, fine.

 

[donnage99]

The other point people are making is that the "f-35 will just keep going, and keep its energy advantage"
But it wasnt built to supercruise like a f-22.

What the hell does supercruise have anything to do with energy advantage by not "turn and burn?" Turn and burn is simple physics, regardless of the ability to supercruise or not. Apparently, you don't have the slightest clue of what people are talking about.

EDIT: And stop the BS about "I just want to ask a question..." You clearly had a very subjective opinion about the capabilities of the f-35 and thrust vectoring. Stop making it look like you are seeking knowledge in an objective manner. To quote what you said:

"I agree with Donnage that the f-35 will have its ass protected by (hopefully) F-22 CAP's"

On that note also, I never said f-35 will be protected by f-22.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks for reminding me of the ASRAAM test, Can ASRAAM do this from an ejector launch?

Test? What part of "first in-service firing" didn’t you understand... As to ejector launch that's part of clearing the ASRAAM on F-35 as part of the capture/carry campaign funded under SDD.

This apparent attempt to constantly re-write things and manipulate them into a bad light by the anti-F35 crowd as seen in LO's response above is really annoying. In service firing becomes a “test” and launch rail versus ejector obfuscation is raised and so on.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

just a curious question though, what's the maximum elevation of EODAS?

i'm a bit wondering on how it'll be able to make radar locks on a turning maneuver, assuming ofc the F-35 is chasing and the target is almost above(relative to the pilot's perspective of "up")

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Northrop Grumman AN/AAQ-37 is the Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS) and is made up of six integrated digital cameras providing full spherical tracking. So its maximum “elevation” is zenith.

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9pGtIirn6g

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

i see...

thanks abe

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm impressed, since even the US does not have a firm fixed price for the FY2012 order yet.

Based on evidence given to the Australian Parliament's Joint Committee on Defence (and other things) by Air Vice-Marshall John Harvey, Australia's F-35 project manager (and other things) on March 30. A reasonable amount of information had emerged to roughly extrapolate the cost of the first 14 RAAF F-35As.

In particular the rough outline as to how much contingency the Australian DoD is factoring into its funding requests ("more than 2-3%... a significant figure") and the amount of the original allocation to go onto actual flyaway aircraft cost. Since Australia has already paid its share of the development cost via its commitment to the SDD phase as a Tier III partner its just a matter of accounting to work out a rough flyaway cost.

AVM Harvey says, "As I was saying, the AUD 3.2 billion is then-year dollars. If you pull it back to now-year dollars, it includes a large amount of contingency, and approximately half of that is non-aircraft costs."

So working back from these statements the then-year dollar price of the first 14 F-35As for the RAAF is roughly under AUD 100 million per aircraft on average (probably flyway cost). This is based on an application of 10% ("significant figure") contingency and the 50% non aircraft costs (spares, specific support equipment, new weapons, facilities upgrades etc). Factoring in inflation is a bit harder but the first two F-35As will have to be paid for in 2012 to ensure 2014 delivery followed by four in 2013 and eight in 2014 (based on the original RAAF F-35A production ramp up schedule and the new initial delivery date). This would mean with an average of 4% per annum inflation an average price for those first 14 F-35As of AUD 86.5 million in 2010 dollars or USD 78 million.

This would then mean a flyaway cost of USD 57 million in 2002 (base year) dollars. While this new base year price for an F-35A (USD 57m flyway) is a bit more than the original estimate of USD 50.2 million this doesn’t take into account that these are early build F-35As without the significant benefit of the lower production cost after ramp up. Even if it did and even if you could factor out the increase in average F-35 cost from the more expensive Bs and Cs compared to the cheaper F-35A you still only have a 19% rise in flyaway cost since 2002 (or 2.4% per annum). While obviously development costs are going to be higher this is a burden primarily borne by the US Government and won’t affect the partners and FMS exports.

So if you can get a slot in 2014-16 deliveries you can buy a fifth generation F-35A fighter for under USD 80 million. No wonder its still the biggest and most popular game in town.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

so any rough estimates for the export cost?

 

[mz]

Why not have an F-104 style fast aircraft with good climb rate and just let the missiles do the turning? Where do you need wings if you don't turn?
Doesn't the Su-27 have a tail radar as well? Can't you just add sensors and new missiles to old airframes? Doesn't the Typhoon also have high off boresight missiles?
I seem to recall this all has been hashed before. Perhaps with the missiles that were in development for the B-70 that used aerodynamic turning...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

so any rough estimates for the export cost?

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) is export and is the cost off the production line with a few extra percent to cover admin costs. The US can't level a slice of development cost under FMS, just what they pay for production. So as I said above if you could get a slot it should cost the same as the RAAF for these LRIP6/7/8 F-35As. Aircraft after these years (deliveries from 2017) should be cheaper as production ramp up and learning benefits (and driving down costs on suppliers).

 

[kcran567]

Why not have an F-104 style fast aircraft with good climb rate and just let the missiles do the turning? Where do you need wings if you don't turn?

Exactly, if maneuver is now irrelevant, why not make a "stealthy supercruising" f-104 style aircraft.

And if the Air Force really believed in that (like they are saying for the f-35) why didn't they just pick the stealthier, faster YF-23 for that matter?

 

[kcran567]

Also, the Russians seem to think they can get in close enough range for a dogfight with either an F-35/F-22, see the T-50 design features like 3D vectoring.

 

[lantinian]

why didn't they just pick the stealthier, faster YF-23 for that matter?

: Yes, one day you may actually find this to be far more interesting question that you have given meaning to.

Why not have an F-104 style fast aircraft with good climb rate and just let the missiles do the turning?

???
Because that plane will not be able to turn when it get's shot at or be to escape an engagement when odds are against it.

Where do you need wings if you don't turn?

Are you seriously asking that question??? ;D What does a plane supposed to carry a lot of payload and land slowly on a carrier need wings for?

 

[Stargazer]

why didn't they just pick the stealthier, faster YF-23 for that matter?

: Yes, one day you may actually find this to be far more interesting question that you have given meaning to.

The old rumor about the F-23 being produced in secrecy as a pure interceptor?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Who said agility was irrelevant (aka manoeuvre) in fifth generation fighters? What is the relationship between agility and lethality? If you can find one you’re a long way ahead of all of the professional analysis of air combat to date. There is little evidence to suggest that high agility is decisive for success to air to air combat. Agility is certainly very important for survivability but so are a lot of things and they are ahead of the agility in the cycle of events.

Also since when was the F-22/F-23 downselect decision made in the 21st century? The development of a digitised, networked spherical engagement capability as demonstrated by EODAS, LOAL and HOBS was not as obvious in the 1980s as it is now. While F-22 will have its missile launch detectors (MLD) modified to give it an EODAS, LOAL, HOBS capability (assuming it can network with the missile!) it was not a concept understood or considered for the ATF project.

Finally who says the F-23 or F-35 are not agile enough? Do you know their respective performance figures in relation to maximum negative specific excess power, time-to-bank and capture 90 degrees, minimum nose-down pitch acceleration, maximum achievable departure free angle-of-attack and maximum lateral acceleration. If you aren’t using these metrics to assess agility you’re just wasting your time.

 

[sferrin]

Also, the Russians seem to think they can get in close enough range for a dogfight with either an F-35/F-22, see the T-50 design features like 3D vectoring.

That's what they're saying anyway. Good luck with that. ;D

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

F-16.net...

oops

 

[Sundog]

Why not have an F-104 style fast aircraft with good climb rate and just let the missiles do the turning? Where do you need wings if you don't turn?
Doesn't the Su-27 have a tail radar as well? Can't you just add sensors and new missiles to old airframes? Doesn't the Typhoon also have high off boresight missiles?
I seem to recall this all has been hashed before. Perhaps with the missiles that were in development for the B-70 that used aerodynamic turning...

Because wing size isn't just about turning. It's also about aerodynamic efficiency, time on station, a large volume to store fuel, and landing speed as well, among other factors.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

What exactly is the F-35's airframe optimized for? When you look at the F-22 it is pretty clear it was built to supercruise. Yet with the F-35, well it has a engine that can provide 40,000+ pounds of thrust, but it can supercruise or exceed Mach 1.8. It carries a huge amount of internal fuel, yet it's range and loiter times don't seem all that impressive. It is said to be as maneuverable as a F-16, but doesn't have the same acceleration. What were they aiming for?

 

[red admiral]

What exactly is the F-35's airframe optimized for? When you look at the F-22 it is pretty clear it was built to supercruise. Yet with the F-35, well it has a engine that can provide 40,000+ pounds of thrust, but it can supercruise or exceed Mach 1.8. It carries a huge amount of internal fuel, yet it's range and loiter times don't seem all that impressive. It is said to be as maneuverable as a F-16, but doesn't have the same acceleration. What were they aiming for?

Carrying lots of fuel whilst having good enough levels of stealth and generally good enough levels of performance elsewhere. Take away the stealth features from the aeroplane and it'll fly a lot further.

Finally who says the F-23 or F-35 are not agile enough? Do you know their respective performance figures in relation to maximum negative specific excess power, time-to-bank and capture 90 degrees, minimum nose-down pitch acceleration, maximum achievable departure free angle-of-attack and maximum lateral acceleration. If you aren’t using these metrics to assess agility you’re just wasting your time.

Without those attributes being in the public domain we can't tell if the F-23 or F-35 _are_agile enough either. You're left with rough comparisons looking at t/w and w/s which are still fairly good indicators of manoeuvre performance. For current conflicts in the air dominance role the level of agility/manoeuvreability isn't likely to make any difference whatsoever. It's only if a proper shooting war starts off with a reasonable threat that it'll become more important. How important? No one really knows given the lack recent conflicts to draw lessons from.

 

[Sundog]

With regard to the F-23 and F-35's agility, they both met/exceeded the specs to the best of my knowledge.

 

[donnage99]

Exactly, if maneuver is now irrelevant, why not make a "stealthy supercruising" f-104 style aircraft.

And if the Air Force really believed in that (like they are saying for the f-35) why didn't they just pick the stealthier, faster YF-23 for that matter?

Get an education before wasting space on this thread with ignorant comments. EODAS was first introduced in the f-35. Back during the yf-22 and yf-23 competition, there is no such system, and missiles were not advanced enough to exploit the kind of system like EODAS.

As for meneuverability, it's never irrelevant. Maneuverability is for alot of things beside closed in dogfight (and the maneuvers they do in dogfight isn't the same as your uneducated mind apparently imagined like in airshow). This is why the f-35 has a clean profile, a superb thrust to weight ratio, advantages that no other aircraft accept f-22, and presumably T-50, has.

The intellectual level of this thread has degraded. It's one thing to debate intelligently, another to correct people on common knowledge. It's fine if you ask a question if you do not know something, even though it's common knowledge. However, if you are to step into a debate, it's better to have understanding first.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

^I didn't know that the F-35 can supercruise ???

iirc the official site says it can't ???

 

[donnage99]

What exactly is the F-35's airframe optimized for? When you look at the F-22 it is pretty clear it was built to supercruise. Yet with the F-35, well it has a engine that can provide 40,000+ pounds of thrust, but it can supercruise or exceed Mach 1.8. It carries a huge amount of internal fuel, yet it's range and loiter times don't seem all that impressive. It is said to be as maneuverable as a F-16, but doesn't have the same acceleration. What were they aiming for?

It was aimed for the agility of legacy fighter, such as f-16, with the stealth and avionics of 5th generation figher. It isn't built for "honest" supercruise like the f-22, but acceleration and climb rate, according to test pilots' testimonies, are well beyond legacy fighters (so i have no idea where you quoted inferior acceleration than f-16). However, if you take into account that with the internal fuel and internal weapons, f-35 can operate in clean configuration, which means it can outmaneuver legacy fighers with all that nasty external loads.

 

[bobbymike]

I admit to being an F-22 fanboy (I still love the aircraft and want the original 750 airframes ;D) and an F-35 doubter, however, I am really starting to come around to the concept and believe that when the wrinkles are ironed out you will have a world beating aircraft.

 

[LowObservable]

CM

The F-35 design is based on STOVL.

More than one engine is unacceptable for STOVL because a twin that will fly engine-out in jetborne flight is not practicable. Therefore the main limit on size is the available power of a practical engine, without sending engine T/W down too far. An F119-based engine defined the size.

Next, overall dimensions are constrained by elevators and spot factor. Both JSF designs avoided weight/complexity of wing folding on the Marine/AF versions.

The only feature not defined by STOVL is the four-tail layout, which was selected in preference to a delta or canard delta because it's very hard to scale the wing size up for the CV requirement - a lower taper ratio is essential, otherwise the wing chord gets too long.

The fuselage itself is arranged around the STOVL propulsion system, with the weapon bays wrapped below the inlet duct (that's why the inner bays can accommodate only AMRAAMs) and volume forward for the fan, with the nose gear ahead of it. STOVL also dictates that the main engine is located as far forward as possible.

Basically, the A and C are modifications of the B design.

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf

$204,000,000 per unit?!?

TWO-HUNDRED AND FOUR MILLION DOLLARS PER UNIT!??!!?!?

I knew it was going to fail, but not that badly! I need a drink... <_<

 

[Rosdivan]

Early production planes cost more than later production planes. Notice that the FY2012 planes are half the cost of the FY2011 ones (though I'd love someone to explain the math behind that one as I'm not seeing how it works).

 

[lantinian]

Wow, I remember it was to be 35 million in 1994 dollars. How do you explain an increase of 600%?

Boy, how are they going to sell that plane internationally? Perhaps LM should subsidize the cost of the plane and introduce a maintenance subscription model.