The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

LowObservable said:
F-35B? With six jets per LHA/LHD, it's not much of a backup - particularly since you have lost your EA and AEW, and that doesn't change even if you push all the helos overboard and add more JSFs.

It is not a given that one hit will put a CVN out of action. It is a risk, and one that the Navy/MDA take seriously.
Click to expand...

Six is the standard. And six is still six more than none. And it doesn't mean you couldn't bump that up in short order (IIRC the new America class is specifically meant to operate in a secondary sea control role with up to 20 F-35s embarked.) What's the history with Harrier deployments on Tarawas and Wasps? Have they ever bumped above six on occasion?
 
Abraham Gubler said:
So the Chinese are allowed to theoretically sweep the seas of carriers with a weapon complex not yet fielded but the USA is not allowed to add a weapon used in one system to another system? Since terminal defence for AEGIS BMD relies ENTIRELY on proven systems that given the benefit of the doubt (ie they will perform as well as they do in their current forms) will more than countermatch the ABSM what freaking planet do you have to be on to assume that it is an un reasonable leap of faith to assume that it will work?
Click to expand...

IOC =/= "not yet fielded".

Abraham Gubler said:
Surely one can assume that the USA and allies can base their aircraft in the future where they are currently based today? Or does the “F-35A/B no impact” scenario rely on a time-space displacement of Kadena AFB, et al into an alternate dimension?
Click to expand...

What combat aircraft units are based outside of the ROK, Japan, or Guam that aren't specifically there to support an internal mission?

Abraham Gubler said:
I never suggested that the USA and allies would be able to base aircraft ‘anywhere’ but rather there are a huge range of geographic options available to enable land absed tacair to enter the fight. Assuming they will have no role in such a war is totally crazy since said war is almost entirely likely to be caused by a border conflict within the areas previously mentioned.
Click to expand...

When was the last time we got into a shooting war with China over the Spratly's? Or the India-China border dispute?

Abraham Gubler said:
TBMs used en masse do not exactly have a track record of denying air bases to their enemies. The scenario that China can close down airbases with their missiles is THE assumption. I very much doubt they can achieve that in the face of a range of airbase defence methods, of which BMD is only one.
Click to expand...

So you are assuming that all of the airbases will remain operational? Why? You're aware we aren't talking about a relative handful of blindingly inaccurate SCUDs, right? You do realize that China tested an NMD system, has imported and designed SAM systems with an ATBM capability, and just might be able to work out the whole countermeasures thing, right? Or are favorable assumptions on unproven technology only reserved for Lockheed products?

Abraham Gubler said:
LOL. So stealth doesn’t work?
Click to expand...

Did I say that?
 
I hope their plan on cutting spending won't include this project. That would be a very bad idea considering they need to keep the job figures/industry optimistic.
 
SOC said:
So you are assuming that all of the airbases will remain operational? Why? You're aware we aren't talking about a relative handful of blindingly inaccurate SCUDs, right? You do realize that China tested an NMD system, has imported and designed SAM systems with an ATBM capability, and just might be able to work out the whole countermeasures thing, right?
Click to expand...

Good thing we are developing a next generation stealth aircraft with VSTOL capabilities like the F-35B Amiright? :)

I also don't get what any of these future war "scenarios" (Scenario be the new word for "china always wins") are doing in an F-35 thread. If the whole US surface fleet is doomed, along with aerial refuelers, and every airfield in the region as well, what do you care if its the F-35 or a typhoon, Rafale, F-15K or anything else? Or did i miss the part where all of the super awesome missile attacks could be averted if only we bought an aircraft a generation older developed in the 1980's? If the US is doomed anyway what do you care about the F-35 being the aircraft we want?

If you want to talk about the effectiveness of china's ability to spam missiles to stop US offensive operations, why not start a separate thread about that?

As for Senator McCain. I live in the US. Politics can be extremely difficult to gauge even in ones own country and I can understand how, outside our borders it may seem like McCain is going to cancel it. I am here to tell you he can't. He is simply trying to look like he is fiscally responsible and the F-35 is the most expensive defense project for a guy who heads up the armed services committee. He knows he can kick and scream all he wants and make a bunch of noise, get lots of press out of it. But he wouldn't dare cancel it if he actually had the chance. He has as much say as any other armchair civilian on the F-35 and he knows it. He even Twittered about how costly the F-35 is. Here is a hint: when someone with power is whining about something to the interwebz, its because they don't have the power to actually change anything or they would just change it.

The F-35 Cancellation would mean the only service with a fifth generation aircraft would be the USAF. It would devastate US Naval aviation, and set them back 20 years until they could develop a fifth Gen. fighter of their own. the USN doesn't want to play second fiddle and lose half its carriers to budget cuts, and stretch the F-18E/F into 2031 as its primary aircraft. McCain won't do that, even if he could.
 
Another Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkYPFn1pV84

The F-35C carrier variant completes its first catapult launch on July 27 at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. Navy test pilot Lt. Chris Tabert flew the mission in test aircraft CF-3.
Click to expand...
 
The bigger winged F-35C is my favorite of the three, IMHO it looks cooler B) If this has been discussed on the thread I apologize but I have not seen it.

I know why the Navy needs a bigger wing/more robustness but my questions are:

1) could this version have been adopted by the Air Force
2) what would have been the possible benefits (payload, range?) the drawbacks (less stealthy?)

Thanks in advance for any responses.
 
bobbymike said:
The bigger winged F-35C is my favorite of the three, IMHO it looks cooler B) If this has been discussed on the thread I apologize but I have not seen it.

I know why the Navy needs a bigger wing/more robustness but my questions are:

1) could this version have been adopted by the Air Force
Click to expand...
It's got lower performance than the F-35A due to all the added weight to land on a carrier, and the added drag due to the larger wing. Also, it's airframe isn't stressed to withstand as many G's in manuevering flight. The C's only advantage is it has longer range due to carrying more fuel internally.[/quote]
 
If the AF wanted the C's range, the best thing they could do is pull the gun and replace that volume with fuel.

The C has an OEW 5,500 lb above the A, according to LockMart numbers.
 
 

Attachments

  • imgad.jpg
    imgad.jpg
    32 KB · Views: 853
In the past I have been somewhat critical of the JSF (and there are still aspects I would prefer to see done differently) however, it's probably the best platform we could [realistically] wish for.

Inevitably, with a programme as large and complex as this there WILL be problems along the way but it's how they are dealt with that matters so to that end, I wish the engineers working on this all the best.

S
 
LowObservable said:
If the AF wanted the C's range, the best thing they could do is pull the gun
Click to expand...

I know AAMs have become a lot more reliable since the 1960s, but I should hope we don't have to re-learn that particular lesson the hard way. Once you run out of AAMs, how do you stand a chance of getting home if someone bounces you or comes after you? At least the gun is unjammable (at least in the ECM sense!!), and as a last resort you stick a piece of chewing gum on the window and sight with that, the old-fashioned way.
 
pathology_doc said:
LowObservable said:
If the AF wanted the C's range, the best thing they could do is pull the gun
Click to expand...

I know AAMs have become a lot more reliable since the 1960s, but I should hope we don't have to re-learn that particular lesson the hard way. Once you run out of AAMs, how do you stand a chance of getting home if someone bounces you or comes after you? At least the gun is unjammable (at least in the ECM sense!!), and as a last resort you stick a piece of chewing gum on the window and sight with that, the old-fashioned way.
Click to expand...

I think he meant an outboard gun that could be attached externally like the F-35B. The USMC thought nothing of a gun you attach because its what they do for the harrier. Not no guns, but guns on an external pylon.
 
Draggy and unstealthy, surely, unless they've been very careful about matching the pod to the aircraft...
 
A quick question - does anyone here able to point out the DAS sensors in photos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ

The video above shows the DAS locations on the jet, but the quality isn't too great and Northrope only giving a rough location for each.

This photo of BF-04 is the only one so far that I've seen that shows something that looks like a DAS viewhole (the black pentagon on the side of the nose, a few tens of cm above and behind the white starboard pitot tube). I haven't seen this pentagon on any other F-35 images, but then again, I've noticed a lot of high quality and even recent F-35 photos have the window panels for the EOTS covered up or replaced as well.

Would that pentagon be one of them? Or would the viewports be operationally covered with some thin RAM film that blends it in with the fuselage for... stealth reasons? ???
If the pentagon is what they look like, does anyone here have any more photos showing the other DAS viewports as well? (I'm helping a friend make a relatively detailed model of the F-35, but the sim doesn't use textures, so details and decals are done with different coloured poly's, so things need to be specific).
 
This attached image shows the location of the six EODAS appertures. You should be able to correlate for one of the high res pictures to get a good idea of what they look like. Also the BAC 111 F-35 flying testbed has EODAS appertures facing to left and right under the radardome.

The locations are forward upper: front of the windscreen; rear upper: aft of the cockpit, forward of the boom IFR apperture; forward lower: middile of the belly; rear lower: aft of the forward lower; left: left cheek under the cockpit; right: right cheek under the cockpit.
 

Attachments

  • F-35_DAS.jpg
    F-35_DAS.jpg
    34.7 KB · Views: 334
That's was sort of my problem - that I wasn't sure what exactly the apertures looked like, however, I managed to find this photo which shows the suspected starboard DAS, but under different lighting conditions (illuminating the apparent ruby component of the aperture).

The image you've provided is good, but is also shown in the AN/AAQ-37 video above - regardless though, thanks for helping out.

I finally made sense of that diagram, specifically in the way that it shows 2 DAS sensors pointing back and forth on the lowest of the 3 views - it refers to a small centreline bulge visible here (the bulge is the bulging white rectangular panel, with an aperture on the forward end and one on the rear). Here is another image showing the dual DAS sensor bulge - it's situated just behind the lift fan exhaust.

I wonder how that arrangement will cope when the bomb bays open. Then again, I'm pretty sure the EOTS would be handling optical targeting at that point.

The upper nose and upper fuselage DAS sensors are and always have been quite noticable.

I've done up a diagram, having hunted down images that show each and every DAS sensor - I had to obtain these images from searches relating specifically to BF-04, AF-9/8/7, etc.
 

Attachments

  • DASlocations.jpg
    DASlocations.jpg
    964.9 KB · Views: 299
pathology_doc said:
LowObservable said:
If the AF wanted the C's range, the best thing they could do is pull the gun
Click to expand...

I know AAMs have become a lot more reliable since the 1960s, but I should hope we don't have to re-learn that particular lesson the hard way. Once you run out of AAMs, how do you stand a chance of getting home if someone bounces you or comes after you? At least the gun is unjammable (at least in the ECM sense!!), and as a last resort you stick a piece of chewing gum on the window and sight with that, the old-fashioned way.
Click to expand...

They're unjammable, in the way you mention, but they do have a propensity to jam themselves, usually at the most "inconvenient" time. Regarding AAMs, they've been a better A2A weapon than guns for a long time, and that includes the Vietnam War, when you look at it as kills per encounter, rather than kills per trigger pull (most encounters, you never get in position to use the gun, so those don't get factored into the usual Pk comparisons).

On the other hand, strafing with an AIM-9 isn't terribly effective, which is why USN and USMC can carry an external gun.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
pathology_doc said:
LowObservable said:
If the AF wanted the C's range, the best thing they could do is pull the gun
Click to expand...

I know AAMs have become a lot more reliable since the 1960s, but I should hope we don't have to re-learn that particular lesson the hard way. Once you run out of AAMs, how do you stand a chance of getting home if someone bounces you or comes after you? At least the gun is unjammable (at least in the ECM sense!!), and as a last resort you stick a piece of chewing gum on the window and sight with that, the old-fashioned way.
Click to expand...

I think he meant an outboard gun that could be attached externally like the F-35B. The USMC thought nothing of a gun you attach because its what they do for the harrier. Not no guns, but guns on an external pylon.
Click to expand...

The gun on the AV-8Bis mounted in a self-contained external housing, not one of the pylons. In fact, the housing is an integral part of the lift system, so much so that when it isn't carrying the gun, specially designed strakes are substituted because it allows the a/c to do STOVL better than with nothing there.
 
pathology_doc said:
Draggy and unstealthy, surely, unless they've been very careful about matching the pod to the aircraft...
Click to expand...

Not too draggy, not that much impact on stealth, given that if you need the gun you're less concerned about stealth anyway. They're pretty careful.
 

Attachments

  • f35gundiag.jpg
    f35gundiag.jpg
    295.3 KB · Views: 241
LowObservable said:
If the AF wanted the C's range, the best thing they could do is pull the gun and replace that volume with fuel.

The C has an OEW 5,500 lb above the A, according to LockMart numbers.
Click to expand...

I think the gun's location is such that if you put fuel there you run the risk of something penetrating both the outer and inner skins and then you're sucking fuel into the engine intake which will result in a rapid increase in heat, light and noise. :eek:
 
F-14D said:
Given that if you need the gun you're less concerned about stealth anyway. They're pretty careful.
Click to expand...

I'd want the gun regardless of whether I could nail my enemies unseen BVR. You never know what you're going to meet on the way home, and I'd hate for some poor sod to have to sacrifice himself just because his last missile failed to definitively kill that (insert rogue state here) airplane on its way to somewhere populous with a nuke. Plus as a last resort, there are no reliable countermeasures to the gun - save for somehow being able to hack the plane's electronics and stop it from firing. Give me a direct electrical contact to the trigger, please. Or better still, a Bowden cable a la Biggles as ultimate backup.
 
pathology_doc said:
F-14D said:
Given that if you need the gun you're less concerned about stealth anyway. They're pretty careful.
Click to expand...

I'd want the gun regardless of whether I could nail my enemies unseen BVR. You never know what you're going to meet on the way home, and I'd hate for some poor sod to have to sacrifice himself just because his last missile failed to definitively kill that (insert rogue state here) airplane on its way to somewhere populous with a nuke. Plus as a last resort, there are no reliable countermeasures to the gun - save for somehow being able to hack the plane's electronics and stop it from firing. Give me a direct electrical contact to the trigger, please. Or better still, a Bowden cable a la Biggles as ultimate backup.
Click to expand...


Weeellll, in the particular post you're citing I was referring to the external gun on the F-35B&C where A2A is not the main reason they use it. If you're coming all the way down to strafe someone, your low degree of RCS isn't that relevant.

In the A2A arena, the consideration of, "What if I've fired all my missiles, or what if my last missile didn't kill whoever", is a question that's always out there. I would counter, carry another missile! :) How much is enough is the eternal decision. One could always flip that question around: What if you were out of bullets, or your cannon fire just wounded the other guy (or your gun jammed)? There aren't any real electronic countermeasures to the gun, except for messing with the radar that delivers the fire control solution. On the other hand, there's a countermeasure against the gun that normally won't work with an AIM-120 or -9x (or similar system) fired in envelope: Dodge!


Generally speaking, to get in positon for a gun shot, you'll already have gone through a number for positions for a missile shot. But what it really comes down to is what the asset is worth relative to the penalties associated with carrying it (and there are a bunch with a gun). Navy and Marines have made the call that it's not worth lugging the gun around all the time.
 
My humble opinion - they will re-learn the necessity of a permanent on-board gun in the next war. Sure, missiles aren't the unreliable fillers of the swear jar that they were in the sixties, but still...

As far as messing with the fire control system is concerned, just try messing with a WW2-era gyro or reflector gunsight and see where that gets you. I believe in belt-and-braces.
 
pathology_doc said:
My humble opinion - they will re-learn the necessity of a permanent on-board gun in the next war. Sure, missiles aren't the unreliable fillers of the swear jar that they were in the sixties, but still...

As far as messing with the fire control system is concerned, just try messing with a WW2-era gyro or reflector gunsight and see where that gets you. I believe in belt-and-braces.
Click to expand...

Actually, what you'll get with a WW2-era sight is a bunch of bullets flying through empty air because a/c are so much more agile now and the battles, even visual take place o a much larger canvas. Like I said, even in the late '60s missiles had already surpassed guns in effectiveness A2A , but set that aside. The decision facing the F-35 operators is whether or not the advantages gained by lugging the gun around on every mission are worth the disadvantages inflicted by lugging the gun around on every mission. For AF, the answer was "Yes", while for USN and USMC the answer was "no".
 
The benefit of a gun is that it provides multiple sufficiently lethal attacks from the weight of a single WVR missile. Once an enemy is within the sights, it is essentially impossible for it to escape/spoof supersonic cannon rounds. The downside is a much lower effective range and more difficult/longer target acquisition.

The thing which makes me uncomfortable about the F-35 is that it lacks the speed to disengage or the maneuverability/payload to persist. This is a chevalier's pre-occupation, of course. At a tactical level, the inability of an individual pilot to fight off hordes of enemies may be more than irrelevant (and in the vast majority of cases the plane would not survive long enough).
 
AFRL seems to be trying to give the F-35 more teeth: AFRL to Give Bunker-Busting a Boost

Declaring that hard and deeply buried targets -- command bunkers and other facilities -- are becoming more numerous and difficult to defeat, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory is seeking ideas for technologies to be incorporated into a high-velocity penetrating weapon -- a 2,000lb munition that would fit inside an F-35 but have the bunker-busting capability of a 5,000lb weapon.
Click to expand...



030e402a-5ad8-4727-98f5-4dcef7271fc2.Large.jpg


2a36f4f7-38d0-42bc-af52-7a02daf38d3f.Large.jpg


[IMAGE CREDITS: Ares Blog]​
 
The other advantage of a gun is that if the interception is politically sensitive, you can fire a warning burst across somebody's nose and then - at the court-martial where they serve you up on a platter Breaker Morant-style - say truthfully that you did indeed give them an unmistakeable universal signal to desist/turn about/land before you put that AIM-9X up their tailpipe and sent them screaming to Hell.

IIRC this was one of the "defences" put up by the Soviets when the shot down KAL-007 - that they'd allegedly fired warning shots from an aircraft that did not have a gun, or even the potential to be fitted with one.
 
pathology_doc said:
IIRC this was one of the "defences" put up by the Soviets when the shot down KAL-007 - that they'd allegedly fired warning shots from an aircraft that did not have a gun, or even the potential to be fitted with one.
Click to expand...

You know Doc you write a lot of opinion on this forum and most of it is half formed from rumours and factoids. KAL-007 was shot down by an Su-15 which often flew carrying two 23mm gun pods. Its just that in the sky at night with a crew that is obviously not paying close attention to where they are flying and without flashlight trace ammo it is very probable that no one saw the 243 rounds the Soviets say they fired as warning at the aircraft.
 
Avimimus said:
The benefit of a gun is that it provides multiple sufficiently lethal attacks from the weight of a single WVR missile. Once an enemy is within the sights, it is essentially impossible for it to escape/spoof supersonic cannon rounds. The downside is a much lower effective range and more difficult/longer target acquisition.

The thing which makes me uncomfortable about the F-35 is that it lacks the speed to disengage or the maneuverability/payload to persist. This is a chevalier's pre-occupation, of course. At a tactical level, the inability of an individual pilot to fight off hordes of enemies may be more than irrelevant (and in the vast majority of cases the plane would not survive long enough).
Click to expand...

But what it can do is dodge. When you are talking about the kind of performance that modern fighters have, it's very difficult to get the target into your sights and hold them there. More importantly, by the time you do so, you've already had multiple opportunites for simpler missile shots.
 
pathology_doc said:
The other advantage of a gun is that if the interception is politically sensitive, you can fire a warning burst across somebody's nose and then - at the court-martial where they serve you up on a platter Breaker Morant-style - say truthfully that you did indeed give them an unmistakeable universal signal to desist/turn about/land before you put that AIM-9X up their tailpipe and sent them screaming to Hell.

IIRC this was one of the "defences" put up by the Soviets when the shot down KAL-007 - that they'd allegedly fired warning shots from an aircraft that did not have a gun, or even the potential to be fitted with one.
Click to expand...

Actually, you don't need a gun even to do that. In daylight, you fly up alongside-- an armed fighter 50 yards or so outside you window is hard to miss. At night, you do what the F-14s ddi when they intercepted the Egyptian airliner carrying the Achille Lauro murderers. You fly up and if they don't see your lights, one of you goes to min. afterburner for a few moments. In a dark sky that really gets attention!!
 
The 2nd F-35B (BF-4, a missionized F-35B) has arrived on the USS WASP, it didn't melt the deck either ;)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6d16817b-d715-41ec-862e-d8375e874ae5&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puj5lueXmJQ&feature=player_embedded
 
Spud - I missed all the people who were saying it would melt the deck. Could you enlighten us?
 
It was a joke (hence the wink ;) ) based on longtime fear mongering that the B would cause damage to decks and landing surfaces.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom