The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[flateric]

after reading Bill Sweetman's biting writings, I'm just asking myself if USAF just wanted too much from single-engine LO strike fighter? at this side, many says that in result we have got LO MiG-27...passing by with Dr. Kopp, who's panically fears of Chinese Tu-160 attack on kangaroo country, but Sweetman and Stevenson are guys who make you think of things

 

[Abraham Gubler]

after reading Bill Sweetman's biting writings, I'm just asking myself if USAF just wanted too much from single-engine LO strike fighter? at this side, many says that in result we have got LO MiG-27...

You're assuming Bill Sweetman is right. He isn't. Like many others Sweetman can't get his head out of the 1980s and realise just why the F-35 will kill everything else in the air. It isn't aerodynamic performance but systems performance. Aerodynamics and so on only serve one role - to get the sensors and weapons into a position in which they can be used. If you change the sensor and weapon dynamics then you can change the aerodynamic and thrust dynamics.

 

[flateric]

well, I respect everyone's opinion. I suppose history will tell us

 

[Abraham Gubler]

well, I respect everyone's opinion. I suppose history will tell us

If you respect everyone's opinion how do you tell right from wrong? I mean no disrespect as a person to Mr Sweetman, he has contributed more than just about anyone else to public understanding of defence aviation, but one has to be intellectually critical and when he or others gets it wrong point it out.

For example Mr Sweetman's belief in the GAO report that the F-35 will be billions over budget. Surely one should assess the GAO's methodology in making such a call before believing it? If so one finds out that the GAO have assessed the effectiveness of the F-35 development program by comparing it to that of the Super Hornet and F-22. So according to the GAO if the F-35 was under development using the same technology and program as the Super Hornet and F-22 it would be in a lot of trouble. This is a fair call but bears little relevance to reality as the F-35 is NOT being developed using the same technology and program as the Super Hornet and F-22.

Mr Sweetman's capability assessments of the F-35 have been even worse. Using the fundamentally flawed opinions of the Air Power Australia lobby group and assessing the F-35 as if it were a 1980s fighter like the F-16 without stealth (because this doesn't work apparently) and with a flashlight radar and the pilots eyeballs as the only sensors.

The anti-F-35 argument is a 21st century air combat version of flat Earthism. While 'history' will make it doubtlessly clear for everyone just how wrong these commentators are there is no need for F-35 equivalent of circumnavigation of the Earth to prove its point. In the same way that science based facts provided more than enough evidence before de Gama that the Earth was round so to can someone workout that the F-35 will be the most lethal weapon system in the form of a fighter jet in the world when it enters operational service.

 

[sferrin]

^--- What he said X2.

 

[lantinian]

the F-35 will be the most lethal weapon system in the form of a fighter jet in the world when it enters operational service.

Well, according to LM themselves, F-35 vs SU-30MKI class fighter is 4:1 and F-22 vs the same treat is 30:1, so I have a slighly gigantic problem accepting that F-35>F-22. Any system currently giving the F-35 any advantage will find its way back into the Raptor if the later needs that advantage against likely adversaries.
You cannot transfer the T/W ration or the aerodynamics of the Raptor back into the F-35!

 

[BDF]

Why aren't you convinced its significant advantage? I can only see the only worry is not in the practicality of the system, but in whether or not the makers can deliver the system (which is still an open question). Because if the DAS becomes reality, it will give aircraft supremacy in term of fist shot/first kill in WVR engagement. This is not just a significant advantage, but a revolutionary advantage.

Because I’m not convinced it will ensure a first shot advantage. Right now legacy jets that employ link 16, JHMCS and AIM-9X/Slammers have very similar capabilities (especially rhino block IIs w/ APG-79s). Are they as capable as F-35 will be? Certainly not but I don’t see it as a paradigm shift that is from say props to jets or a conventional to VLO signatures. The biggest problem that I see with this theory is that it assumes that the F-35 will have a monopoly in this technology; it won’t. For instance the F-22 program office is already looking at updating the AAR-56’s to provide a DAS capability. The Typhoon will have similar capabilities too and I doubt they’ll be the last.

As for f-35's kinematics performance, I suggest you read the previous posts of this thread.

The F-35 has been described as between the F-18 and F-16. Its acceleration, instantaneous and sustained turn rates and available G are all very similar to those two fighters. Not remotely surprising since the staple of JSF KPPs were designed to keep cost down and current LWF performance was deemed sufficient. Take turn performance, numbers I’ve heard are in the 23-25*/sec range for instantaneous and 17-19*/sec sustained. Very little is known about the F-22 other than the now infamous youtube clips where the good Colonel mentioned a staggering 28*/sec sustained for the F-22 at 20,000’. When you can one circle fight a viper and defeat him decisively then you have some serious overmatch. Don’t get me wrong, I think the F-35 will be a great jet I just don’t want to see us putting all our proverbial fighter eggs into just one basket.

BDF

 

[AeroFranz]

the F-35 will be the most lethal weapon system in the form of a fighter jet in the world when it enters operational service.

Meh. I would be careful making absolute claims of this magnitude. At this time, the only certainty regarding its lethality is vis-a-vis of any nation's military budget! ;D

 

[BDF]

I guess the acronym hasn’t been invented yet but HOBS fighter is close enough. The F-35’s ability to leverage its full spherical, automated SA and engagement capability places it in a totally new ballpark.

I agree that it is certainly a pretty big step but I’m skeptical that it is a decisive advantage to current deployed systems (link 16, JHMCS, -9X/-120 and with the Rhino block II AESA); particularly for offensive or neutral merges where both legacy platforms and F-35s have their full sensors pointing towards the targets. Now where I do think this is a significant development is in protection from defensive merges or surface threats where the threat is approaching from outside the APG-81 and EOTS fields of regard. Also as I mentioned in a previous post I think it’s a mistake to assume that the F-35 will have a monopoly on this capability. Just as an example off the top of my head, the F-22 PO is moving towards upgrading the F-22 with a DAS capability and its worth noting that the actual hardware are adaptations from mature systems.

Considering the difference in acquistion numbers between F-22 and F-35 its reasonable to assume for every mission in which a single F-22 has a job you can have at least two F-35s. Because the F-22's kinematic advantage is so limited in endurance (<15 minutes of supercruise in a typical mission) I can't see it being able to do too much more than two networked F-35s.

As to fighting a near peer to F-22 that is so far in the future (if ever feasible) the F-35 will be carrying a laser and other stuff by then so the lethality index will be way against the F-22iski.

With the recent report from AvWeek’s DTAR conference revealing that the USAF feels that it can cover the an area with 6 F-22s vice 10 F-35s 2:1 may be close but other considerations such as the higher effectiveness against air threats (LockMart) and better survivability against ground threats (3.5 times according to Grant’s presentation) make a direct numeric comparison even more difficult. Regarding supersonic persistence it depends on the mission parameters and as I mentioned before, AvWeek quotes a USAF official that the F-22 can cruise at “around mach 1.5” for 41 minutes. Certainly its persistence is markedly better than any legacy or even the F-35.

Just making a quick and dirty calculation based on estimated TSFC, I estimate the F-35’s specific range at Mach 1.6/40Kft at around 0.016 nm/lb. That means the F-22 has conservatively 2.5 to 3 times more endurance supersonically. As I mentioned in the other thread I do like the F-35, I just think that its capabilities have been vaulted a little too high in some aspects and I am leery about some of the assumptions that it is dominant in all mission sets (absolutely deadly attack asset). Certainly when operated within its CONOPS it will be a very lethal platform but its CONOPS has always been predicated on operation with other assets.

BDF

BTW- I don’t think lasers are progressing quite that fast!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

For instance the F-22 program office is already looking at updating the AAR-56’s to provide a DAS capability. The Typhoon will have similar capabilities too and I doubt they’ll be the last.

While the F-35 DAS system has evolved from missile launch warning systems so said systems can be upgraded to provide a DAS like capability because the full DAS sensor was designed into the F-35 it has much larger aperture cameras. So it will always have a sensitivity advantage over F-22 and Typhoon, etc platforms that may upgrade their much smaller apertures. It will also have the advantage thanks to its more advanced mission computers and displays of presenting the information to the pilot.

What I think is so transformational about DAS is the way it will change the pilot's establishment of situational awareness (SA). While other aircraft with offboard or helmet cueing can fire HOBS shots its the F-35 that will have HOBS SA. Without the pilot having to turn their head or manouvre the aircraft and without having to orientate eyeball to inner eye map to workout where everything is in relation to each other. There are also advantages in significantly better sensitivity, target identification, ranging and so on that DAS can do over the eyeball-brain combination.

So the DAS equipped fighter pilot will be fighting air to air battle with the benefit of a computer game viewpoint as opposed to trying to work it out. This will provide them with a significant decision making time advantage.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The F-35 has been described as between the F-18 and F-16. Its acceleration, instantaneous and sustained turn rates and available G are all very similar to those two fighters. Not remotely surprising since the staple of JSF KPPs were designed to keep cost down and current LWF performance was deemed sufficient. Take turn performance, numbers I’ve heard are in the 23-25*/sec range for instantaneous and 17-19*/sec sustained. Very little is known about the F-22 other than the now infamous youtube clips where the good Colonel mentioned a staggering 28*/sec sustained for the F-22 at 20,000’. When you can one circle fight a viper and defeat him decisively then you have some serious overmatch. Don’t get me wrong, I think the F-35 will be a great jet I just don’t want to see us putting all our proverbial fighter eggs into just one basket.

Once weapons and sensors that really leverage HOBS capability like F-35 DAS and JDRADM are in service (not to mention AIM-120D and ASRAAM, etc) who will really care about sustained rate of turn? What role will the difference between 15 and 30 degrees per second sustained rate of turn play in the air to air combat arena? Zip, nil, nada.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Meh. I would be careful making absolute claims of this magnitude. At this time, the only certainty regarding its lethality is vis-a-vis of any nation's military budget! ;D

Not true in the slightest. But you're welcome to your opinion. Though people who say "meh" tend to be be lacking in many more traits than just enthusiasm.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well, according to LM themselves, F-35 vs SU-30MKI class fighter is 4:1 and F-22 vs the same treat is 30:1, so I have a slighly gigantic problem accepting that F-35>F-22.

You are assuming there is some kind of benchmark leveling between such analysis and that they even remotely serve any kind of a role rather than to display by inverse proportionality the marketing effort needed to sustain the project.

Any system currently giving the F-35 any advantage will find its way back into the Raptor if the later needs that advantage against likely adversaries.

No it won't, apart from the budget needing to be provided there are technical limitations. The thing about VLO aircraft like the F-22, F-35, B-2 is it is very difficult to change their design with new features unless it is one for one replacement or designed in growth space. For example you can not replace the F-22's missile launch warning system with the F-35's AAQ-37 system because the camera sizings are different. You can't just go and scab on extra features to the outer surface or punch holes like you can on a F-16.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

BTW- I don’t think lasers are progressing quite that fast!

Even at a glacial speed they are progressing faster than the Russian aerospace industry.

 

[donnage99]

Because I’m not convinced it will ensure a first shot advantage. Right now legacy jets that employ link 16, JHMCS and AIM-9X/Slammers have very similar capabilities (especially rhino block IIs w/ APG-79s). Are they as capable as F-35 will be? Certainly not but I don’t see it as a paradigm shift that is from say props to jets or a conventional to VLO signatures. The biggest problem that I see with this theory is that it assumes that the F-35 will have a monopoly in this technology; it won’t. For instance the F-22 program office is already looking at updating the AAR-56’s to provide a DAS capability. The Typhoon will have similar capabilities too and I doubt they’ll be the last.

First off, I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing f-35 vs. f-22 whatsoever. I'm talking about f-35 vs. anything we know beside the raptor.

With that, to address your first point: unless pilots are idiots whose experience draws straight out of Ace Combat game series, then no, a stealth aircraft with superior situational awareness against a much inferior one in these reguards won't run straight nose to nose into each other in the turning of an dogfight. The whole point of having stealth is to be able to force your own terms on enemy aircraft. F-35, with significantly low RCS against any other aircraft but the f-22, combining with vastly superior situational awareness, will get the first look of the enemy (we are disreguarding any BVR scenario here for the sake of focusing on the particular issue), have plenty of time to position itself in the most advantage direction possible in approaching the enemy where his sensors are the weakest and/or he has to make extreme maneuver to engage the F-35. In any case, a straight run-in is extremely unrealistic.

In any case, the EODAS still gives the f-35 the power to lock/shot from any direction, angle with no limitation. That's the game changing trump card I'm talking about. Even with JHMCS and HOBS heat seeking missile like aim-9x, aircrafts that carry it still suffers from severe limitation which f-35 simply doesn't have. In other word, and also ironically in Carl Kopp's own words, missiles with huge no escape zone and HMD have matured enough to reshape the conventional mindset of dogfight. F-35 explores these new factors and take them to the extreme. It's still a next step from HMD+HOBS missiles even when we takes these factors into reguard.

As for incooperating a DAS like system into f-22 already existing missile approach warning system to a similar capabilities of EODAS. I don't see how that can magically happens unless you gonna strip down the aircraft to the core, as the OEDAS is an overlapping sensors spreading through out the airframe. Incorperate it would mean that internal structures will have to be redesigned, with possibility of external design. In light of the fact that f-35B will also feature the optical sensor facet cone in the front of its nose even though it's just an empty box because removing it would boost up development cost for wind tunnel test, modification to flight control, etc. speaks alot about the unlikelihood of the f-22 will ever undergone an upgrade that would require external modification as a typical scheduled block upgrade. The typhoon or any other aircraft is even that much further down the road.

The F-35 has been described as between the F-18 and F-16. Its acceleration, instantaneous and sustained turn rates and available G are all very similar to those two fighters. Not remotely surprising since the staple of JSF KPPs were designed to keep cost down and current LWF performance was deemed sufficient. Take turn performance, numbers I’ve heard are in the 23-25*/sec range for instantaneous and 17-19*/sec sustained. Very little is known about the F-22 other than the now infamous youtube clips where the good Colonel mentioned a staggering 28*/sec sustained for the F-22 at 20,000’. When you can one circle fight a viper and defeat him decisively then you have some serious overmatch. Don’t get me wrong, I think the F-35 will be a great jet I just don’t want to see us putting all our proverbial fighter eggs into just one basket.

BDF

Like I said, and no disrespect intended whatsoever, I suggest you should read previous posts as they already addressed these points you made.

 

[AeroFranz]

Not true in the slightest. But you're welcome to your opinion. Though people who say "meh" tend to be be lacking in many more traits than just enthusiasm.

Abraham, I guess i should avoid expressing myself in monosyllabic terms. Also, as with many of the forum members, English is not my first language, so I may not be using the right expressions at times. I can assure you there was no offense implied, just skepticism. No need to get defensive and to make personal comments about my traits (or lack thereof), all i'm saying is that the true capabilities of the F-35, which are not quantifiable and comparable in the classic terms of say, T/W, Ps and W/S, are known only to the people at Northrop and Lockheed. Hell, some of it they won't even know until they put all the pieces together and play games with it. CONOPS has got something to do with it, right? Right now, unless you attend meetings with the technical staff of the aforementioned companies, you know what passes through their PR offices, and you can make educated guesses.
I was skeptical about what passed for certitude on your part about something on which it's hard to make a call.
My only comment was on price, which back in the day was supposed to be ~$35M. Now I can't say how many F-35 will ever be built, but we can all safely assume that it will be at least twice that. So if you planned to buy 200 JSFs in 2000, now you can only afford 100 F-35s. Or give up something else. The fact that F-35 will be a burden on any nation's budget is based on math, not on my personal opinion.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham, I guess i should avoid expressing myself in monosyllabic terms. Also, as with many of the forum members, English is not my first language, so I may not be using the right expressions at times.

No harm done. "Meh" can be a pretty insulting word as it means 'I don't think this issue is important enough to bother doing anything'...

all i'm saying is that the true capabilities of the F-35, which are not quantifiable and comparable in the classic terms of say, T/W, Ps and W/S, are known only to the people at Northrop and Lockheed. Hell, some of it they won't even know until they put all the pieces together and play games with it.

Well the true capabilities of the F-35 are known by a lot of people outside of Lockheed, Northrop, BAe, et all. In particular by the F-35 project office and all the partners. While some elements of this capability are kept very secret, like the VLO levels, the level of anti-tamper software for partners, etc, they do not try and keep the overall capability level secret. Unfortunately most of the commentators don't seem to want to understand what they are being told and keep on promoting a Boydian EM argument against the F-35.

My only comment was on price, which back in the day was supposed to be ~$35M. Now I can't say how many F-35 will ever be built, but we can all safely assume that it will be at least twice that.

Again the price issue is surrounded by illusion. Because some of the pricing methods used counter normal intuition lots of people don't understand it. Things like using FY 2002 Then Year Dollars (TYD) to track real programatic increase in price separate to normal inflation. Also the multiple levels of fly away, unit and unit procurement cost. The real price of the F-35 is actually going down as the production line starts to leverage efficiencies. LRIP2 was 3.5% lower than predicted. LRIP3 is 5% lower. The current production average fly away cost of a F-35 is about USD 52 million. Production average costs won't be reached until about 2015 so inflation will add a bit to this cost. This is a pretty competitive fly away cost considering the F-35 comes with jammer, FLIR, LR/LD that are usually add on pods to current fighters.

 

[lantinian]

Any system currently giving the F-35 any advantage will find its way back into the Raptor if the later needs that advantage against likely adversaries.

No it won't

Future capability of the F-22/F-35 are defined by software not new hardware. Just because two antennae on the aircraft have different sizes does not mean they cannot operate in the same way. There is so much more potential in the AESA than currently enabled in either F-22 or F-35 radar testbeds.

However, stating that F-22 cannot be hardware upgraded in the future is nonsense. It has both cooling and space reserved for Side looking AESA arrays and an EOST. Once production of the F-35 mounts up and prices drop, these items will find it way into the Raptor if needed. Just increasing the computational power on the aircraft allows you to detect a whole new class of objects in the current radar clutter that is not displayed.

Software and processing power will be the primary means of upgrade for the forceable future. Its cheap and its effective and its barely explored.

It is just more convenient for the Air Force to test and refine all its new technology as part of a new and bigger and better financed program. Spending huge money on upgrading ~200 Raptors at the moment is not practical, even though the benefits will go over to the F-35 later.

You also seem to forget how the manufacturing process for the AESA modules perfected for the F-35 radar found its back into the F-22 production line and cut costs.

Looking back in the F-15/F-16 relationships, the F-15C was quietly updated with the latest technology even. Now, even though the F-35 will likely be first to push the boundaries in electronic warfare, sensors and digital tactics, and be the primary PR for the USAF, the F-22 will be quietly updated in the background because that is what it takes to keep a silver bullet force silver.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

However, stating that F-22 cannot be hardware upgraded in the future is nonsense. It has both cooling and space reserved for Side looking AESA arrays and an EOST. Once production of the F-35 mounts up and prices drop, these items will find it way into the Raptor if needed. Just increasing the computational power on the aircraft allows you to detect a whole new class of objects in the current radar clutter that is not displayed.

Which is why I said "unless the modification was designed in", whereas you said "anything good will end up on the F-22". The F-22 was not designed for a DAS capability. So you can't go in and add the six big DAS cameras. You can add a software mod - assuming you can find a workforce of several hundred who can program in the F-22's machine code language which is a very big assumption - to provide the missile launch sensors with a tracking capability but you can't replace these sensors with the big aperture cameras needed to make it a real transformational capability.

You also seem to forget how the manufacturing process for the AESA modules perfected for the F-35 radar found its back into the F-22 production line and cut costs.

Not at all. But there is a big difference between replacing AESA modules with a new compared to trying to replace the F-22's entire AESA array with one of different size, power requirements, etc. Which is the DAS related comparison.

Also the assumption that the USAF and USG will be motivated to support upgrade projects for the F-22 which will be a very small number in service 180-2XX when F-35s are flowing into service with new weapons capabilities like JDRADM and multi store bays is hard to make. The silver on the F-22 bullet will tarnish with time and with the production line closed much of the promotional motivation will disappear. The cost of upgrading the F-22 will be astronomical per unit compared to the F-35. From its machine code language through to limited scope its just not a good deal.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Back to the original topic here are some F-35 videos.

The amazing radar performance. This is with 2006 processors not the 10 times better stuff that will be in Block III F-25s.

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

And overall data fused sensor concept:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnqeqEtbvo8

 

[BDF]

While the F-35 DAS system has evolved from missile launch warning systems so said systems can be upgraded to provide a DAS like capability because the full DAS sensor was designed into the F-35 it has much larger aperture cameras. So it will always have a sensitivity advantage over F-22 and Typhoon, etc platforms that may upgrade their much smaller apertures. It will also have the advantage thanks to its more advanced mission computers and displays of presenting the information to the pilot.

Do you have a citation for that? I haven’t been able to find the specs on either system and I’ve been looking. No anecdotes or trade pub articles either. A comparison between the two systems appears to be quite similar in resolution:

F-22: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/MLD_Orlando.mpeg

F-35:

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

4:45 on is comparable to the MLD video

Also you are incorrect that they about the possibility of intergration of the AAQ-37 (if it is indeed needed). In the case of the AAR-56 MLD the system was designed from the onset for modularity for technology backfit. The aperture itself is mounted in a window frame panel that can be removed and replaced with a larger window if the upgrade path requires it. Even if they did have to make changes to the mold line that may not be as much of an obstacle as you might think; they are going to make changes for MALD to both the F-22 and B-2.

I’m rather dubious that the F-22’s current disadvantage in processing is enough to preclude it from utilizing DAS or other backfit and or new technologies (EA attack, network attack etc.). The Typhoon probably won't however. Right now the F-22's CIPs aren’t being taxed yet and with the innate modularity of the architecture hardware upgrades are fairly easy. In fact in the DMS team of the F-22 PO they are looking at leveraging more F-35 technology from the COTS based ICPs. Regarding displays the format and symbology is standardized between the two jets so other than having larger display area I don’t see any advantage there either.

What I think is so transformational about DAS is the way it will change the pilot's establishment of situational awareness (SA). While other aircraft with offboard or helmet cueing can fire HOBS shots its the F-35 that will have HOBS SA. Without the pilot having to turn their head or manouvre the aircraft and without having to orientate eyeball to inner eye map to workout where everything is in relation to each other. There are also advantages in significantly better sensitivity, target identification, ranging and so on that DAS can do over the eyeball-brain combination.

So the DAS equipped fighter pilot will be fighting air to air battle with the benefit of a computer game viewpoint as opposed to trying to work it out. This will provide them with a significant decision making time advantage.

To some extent I agree, but again I think it’s naive to assume that the F-35 will have any meaningful monopoly in this area as current US platforms (and no doubt foreign ones as well) such as the F-22 are on parallel upgrade paths or developing similar capabilities. The F-22 would be able to provide the same 360 awareness right now provided they use mutual support and have overlapping sensor coverage. It wouldn't have HMDS for helmet cueing but threats would appear on the PMFD just as they'd appear to the F-35 pilot. One area that hasn't been addressed is that DAS doesn't have the ability to ID threat aircraft on its own so in some scenarios other sensors will have to be cued to threat for ID, mainly the radar.

BDF

 

[BDF]

Once weapons and sensors that really leverage HOBS capability like F-35 DAS and JDRADM are in service (not to mention AIM-120D and ASRAAM, etc) who will really care about sustained rate of turn? What role will the difference between 15 and 30 degrees per second sustained rate of turn play in the air to air combat arena? Zip, nil, nada.

If that’s the case then why bother with endowing the F-35’s with the agility that it has now? This is the same line of reasoning they thought when HOBS missiles entered service and yet they still have to maneuver because, among other things, high angle shots diminished the weapons MER. I’ll grant you that JDRADM, if it delivers on its promises, will make WVR maneuvering much more dangerous but it does not negate the need for maneuverability as there are common tactical situations that require high agility such as countering a BVR threat’s shot potential (cranking) or evade a actual BVR shot. Plus you can’t dismiss countermeasures or missile failure. I think that the DAS video greatly simplifies WVR combat even if the system delivers the promised capabilities. Again, don’t get me wrong it’s a great capability but we aren’t ready to go toward missileer platforms just yet.

BTW-I’m not sure JDRADM is still earmarked for the dual range capability that was envisioned in the proceeding DRADM program. Right now its being touted as a advanced BVRAAM and AR missile.

BDF

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Do you have a citation for that? I haven’t been able to find the specs on either system and I’ve been looking. No anecdotes or trade pub articles either.

No one who's name I can mention here but very well clued into this area (very well). The physical size of the AAQ-37 DAS LRUs is much larger than AAR-56 MLD and similar units.

A comparison between the two systems appears to be quite similar in resolution:

Very difficult to asses resolution issues through released imagery as it is routinely downgraded (in resolution).

Also you are incorrect that they about the possibility of intergration of the AAQ-37 (if it is indeed needed). In the case of the AAR-56 MLD the system was designed from the onset for modularity for technology backfit. The aperture itself is mounted in a window frame panel that can be removed and replaced with a larger window if the upgrade path requires it. Even if they did have to make changes to the mold line that may not be as much of an obstacle as you might think; they are going to make changes for MALD to both the F-22 and B-2.

Point taken, I am quite unfamiliar with the specifics of F-22 design as in this case.

To some extent I agree, but again I think it’s naive to assume that the F-35 will have any meaningful monopoly in this area as current US platforms (and no doubt foreign ones as well) such as the F-22 are on parallel upgrade paths or developing similar capabilities.

But who will be first... Besides even I can admit that the F-35 vs F-22 argument is facetious. But with both being DASlike and JDRADM equipped who would score the most kills against FLANKERs from the merge?

The F-22 would be able to provide the same 360 awareness right now provided they use mutual support and have overlapping sensor coverage. It wouldn't have HMDS for helmet cueing but threats would appear on the PMFD just as they'd appear to the F-35 pilot. One area that hasn't been addressed is that DAS doesn't have the ability to ID threat aircraft on its own so in some scenarios other sensors will have to be cued to threat for ID, mainly the radar.

F-35 has an advantage in being designed-in for DAS so space is provided for the larger camera units and the required processing and data fusion. DAS is currently (Block III) required to only identify and classify friendly aircraft, unfriendly aircraft and missiles. DAS will identify every moving target as a potential threat but throws out those that aren't in the requirements. The software can easily be expanded to include ground targets. I don't know why you think it can't ID aircraft alone, as long as it has enough pixels to tell the difference it will classify aircraft by type. DAS is designed to share components with EOTS but something outside the field of view of EOTS can still be classified as type of aircraft.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If that’s the case then why bother with endowing the F-35’s with the agility that it has now?

There are many other uses for agility such as rapid response to new targeting, evasion, etc. But agility as an offensive tool? Especially when combined with very high SA including data link from AEW&C where most ATA combat will be brutal ambushes until the threat ever catch up with SA.

BTW-I’m not sure JDRADM is still earmarked for the dual range capability that was envisioned in the proceeding DRADM program. Right now its being touted as a advanced BVRAAM and AR missile.

If it keeps the anti-missile-missile capability it will need the dual range option. But wait and see until the SDD phase is launched in the next few years.

 

[donnage99]

Surfing around pictures of the f-35A and F-35B, I notice that the F-35B doesn't have the bump under its belly near the aft section like the f-35A.
I wildly assumes that the f-35A bump has similar purpose to the f-22's stub, but does anyone know why the f-35B doesn't have it?

 

[Just call me Ray]

the bump is omitted in the B version to make room for the doors for the engine in lift mode.

 

[AeroFranz]

Isn't that bump a fairing for the Air Force tailhook?

 

[flateric]

This IS tail hook fairing on Raptor

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

Photo (c) Michael Durning @ Airliners.Net

 

[energo]

So the DAS equipped fighter pilot will be fighting air to air battle with the benefit of a computer game viewpoint as opposed to trying to work it out. This will provide them with a significant decision making time advantage.

In particular in dim lighting, at night or in poor weather. Typical high north maritime and winter twilight conditions. Providing the pilot with an full field of view, rather than a narrow field NVG, HUD or IRST, will be a significant tactical advantage.


Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[energo]

The F-35 has been described as between the F-18 and F-16. Its acceleration, instantaneous and sustained turn rates and available G are all very similar to those two fighters. Not remotely surprising since the staple of JSF KPPs were designed to keep cost down and current LWF performance was deemed sufficient. Take turn performance, numbers I’ve heard are in the 23-25*/sec range for instantaneous and 17-19*/sec sustained.

Having had a few talks with Lockheed I might add a little to that: the F-35s instantaneous turn rate is better than any F-16 block.

It can also pull 9g with an internal weapons compliment of 5000+ pounds - a fairly unique capability.

Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[sferrin]

You might want to pass that on to Bill S. and ELP so they can put their pitchforks and torches down.

 

[BDF]

No one who's name I can mention here but very well clued into this area (very well). The physical size of the AAQ-37 DAS LRUs is much larger than AAR-56 MLD and similar units.

Ok, fair enough

Very difficult to asses resolution issues through released imagery as it is routinely downgraded (in resolution).

Agreed

But who will be first... Besides even I can admit that the F-35 vs F-22 argument is facetious. But with both being DASlike and JDRADM equipped who would score the most kills against FLANKERs from the merge?

My point is that by the time JDRADM becomes an actual deployable system (i.e. we do move away from traditional short ranged WVR missiles) the two platforms will have for the most part very similar capabilities avionic wise

F-35 has an advantage in being designed-in for DAS so space is provided for the larger camera units and the required processing and data fusion.

Agreed but as I mentioned earlier while the F-22 is suffering from DMS issues on some components architecturally the two jets are nearly identical and in fact the F-22 was intentionally designed for an easy hardware upgrade path. One big attraction of the JSF program was that it was leveraging technology from the ATF program and because of that common architecture the F-22 would be able to benefit itself and leverage the newer JSF technology for upgrade spirals of its own.

I don’t see nor have I heard that there are any technical obstacles for the F-22 upgrades and while the F-35 will certainly be more capable avionics wise “out of the box” than the F-22 is now, the F-22 PO is already moving on future increments and I do know that replacement of the CIPs and adding DAS/HMDS capability are part of those spirals.

DAS is currently (Block III) required to only identify and classify friendly aircraft, unfriendly aircraft and missiles. DAS will identify every moving target as a potential threat but throws out those that aren't in the requirements. The software can easily be expanded to include ground targets. I don't know why you think it can't ID aircraft alone, as long as it has enough pixels to tell the difference it will classify aircraft by type. DAS is designed to share components with EOTS but something outside the field of view of EOTS can still be classified as type of aircraft.

Yes it can classify tracks by type (aircraft, missile, ground vehicle etc.) and may even be able to further classify by subtype (fighter, transport, etc.) but I haven’t seen the ability to ID a target specifically (Su-27, F-15 etc.) attributed to it. All the information I’ve read indicate that it essentially blue force tracks and detects possible threats but cannot ID the target on its own. This is the essential point because despite all the wonderful technology that is now coming online in the next few years you will still have to transverse an ID matrix to authorize a BVR shot.

With the much more accurate and high resolution that AESA radars (via HRR NCTR for one example) and EW suites, they may now have be ability to EID to shoot on their own but I’m skeptical that the ROEs will permit a DAS only track will to be engaged. More likely you’ll have to have DAS + MALD track or DAS + EW etc. Certainly there may be a range where the resolution can discern a specific type of target but DAS is a near BVR system, 30-40km against a fighter sized threat and I’m very skeptical it can ID at those ranges. Thus in the a scenario such as postulated in the video where a couple F-35s are being intercepted from behind they may not be able to just shoot and keep running. Now again, don’t get me wrong, DAS is very impressive and is a major improvement but there is limitations.

There are many other uses for agility such as rapid response to new targeting, evasion, etc. But agility as an offensive tool? Especially when combined with very high SA including data link from AEW&C where most ATA combat will be brutal ambushes until the threat ever catch up with SA.

Fighter combat has always been about surprise, a fair fight such as a neutral merge or WVR combat in general are highly undesirable because of the traditional high unpredictability and historically even exchange rate. My concern with the F-35 as it’s been presented so far is that many of the capabilities, while very impressive, tend to be predicated on somewhat rosy assumptions that I’m not sure are a robust enough advantage particularly the way that fighter combat is trending; i.e. BVR CONOPS revolving around traits such as high, fast and low observable. The following are some challenges now and moving forward:

• Positioning for maximizing weapon’s kinematics and Pk WVR and BVR
  
• Constraints in certain mission sets may require you to defend the airspace and prevent contempt of engagement tactics such as blow through attacks (BARCAP, HAVCAP, escort missions etc.)
  
• Countermeasures, missile Pk and weapon capacity
  
• OpFor possessing similar capabilities or an unforeseen countermeasure
  
• Degradated SA: Network attacks, jamming and LO platforms employed by OpFor
  

An often used counter arugment to these concerns is stealth. Now I’ll be the first to say that I’m a big proponent of LO technology and I due appreciate its immense value but I also know that there are not only limits now but there will be an erosion in this capability in the future. How much is anyone’s guess. The F-35 will be in production for 20+ years and a system life of almost double that so its naïve to assume that the LO technology now will ensure near impunity 15-20 years down the road to the degree it does now. Not even the F-22 with its better signature and superior kinematics will be able to maraud around with impunity.

It is for those reasons and the way our force structure recapitalization is trending towards a lopsidedly F-35 centric force that gives me pause and raises concern. I have no doubt the F-35 will be a great jet but I think we (the US) are asking too much from a jet that was designed for a CONOPS predicated on support from other assets; assets of which we have too few.

BDF

 

[BDF]

The F-35 has been described as between the F-18 and F-16. Its acceleration, instantaneous and sustained turn rates and available G are all very similar to those two fighters. Not remotely surprising since the staple of JSF KPPs were designed to keep cost down and current LWF performance was deemed sufficient. Take turn performance, numbers I’ve heard are in the 23-25*/sec range for instantaneous and 17-19*/sec sustained.

Having had a few talks with Lockheed I might add a little to that: the F-35s instantaneous turn rate is better than any F-16 block.

It can also pull 9g with an internal weapons compliment of 5000+ pounds - a fairly unique capability.

Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo

Sounds about right. The F-22 is purported to be full 9 G capable with full internal weapons and fuel; i.e. no restrictions throughout the envelope so I'm not surprised the F-35 has similar capabilties at least regarding weapons.

BDF

 

[energo]

Having had a few talks with Lockheed I might add a little to that: the F-35s instantaneous turn rate is better than any F-16 block.

It can also pull 9g with an internal weapons compliment of 5000+ pounds - a fairly unique capability.

Sounds about right. The F-22 is purported to be full 9 G capable with full internal weapons and fuel; i.e. no restrictions throughout the envelope so I'm not surprised the F-35 has similar capabilties at least regarding weapons.

BDF

I doubt the F-22 would be able to go 9g with a full fuel load. The F-35 is 9g-capable up to the basic flight design gross weight, sometimes refered to as "maneuvering weight", which is at 60% fuel and AAMs. Most fighters have G-restrictions with full internal fuel, but I'm not aware of any one capable of pulling 9g with 2000 pound class weapons like the F-35. Not even the F-22.


Bjørnar Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[donnage99]

An often used counter arugment to these concerns is stealth. Now I’ll be the first to say that I’m a big proponent of LO technology and I due appreciate its immense value but I also know that there are not only limits now but there will be an erosion in this capability in the future. How much is anyone’s guess. The F-35 will be in production for 20+ years and a system life of almost double that so its naïve to assume that the LO technology now will ensure near impunity 15-20 years down the road to the degree it does now. Not even the F-22 with its better signature and superior kinematics will be able to maraud around with impunity.

It is for those reasons and the way our force structure recapitalization is trending towards a lopsidedly F-35 centric force that gives me pause and raises concern. I have no doubt the F-35 will be a great jet but I think we (the US) are asking too much from a jet that was designed for a CONOPS predicated on support from other assets; assets of which we have too few.

BDF

By the time the enemy design a radar powerful enough to identify and track the f-35, a VLO platform at significant and tactical distance by today measure, how far can the f-35's radar will track a non-stealthy target by that time then? Assuming that down 15 years from now, the opponent's radar development is comparable with our own radar development, f-35 will still be able to see the target first, and in turn able to force its terms on the opponent, maintaining its advantages.

The case will not be that much different now or 20 years from now.

 

[LowObservable]

Abe G is overselling the F-35 here.

The focus on the use of DAS + off-boresight missiles to avoid the merge was a logical approach in the early requirement stages in the mid-1990s. The West was just absorbing the shock of discovering the R-73 + HMS combo and realizing that a turning engagement could be mutual suicide. The JSF approach is not technically impossible - and in fact with missile datalinks and improved EO and processing, it's more practical than it was when the idea was first incorporated.

However, it is (so far) entirely untested outside the simulator. Moreover, the JSF does not carry AIM-9X internally as yet, and the AIM-120 simply is not designed for close-range HOBS - it accelerates too fast resulting in a large turning radius. So, at the very least, you need an internal AIM-9X, which means a trapeze and rail launcher.

Finally, the complexity of the task is staggering. You're using an az-el tracker to retain multiple dynamic tracks around the aircraft, which may itself be maneuvering, while trying to point the seeker of a missile (itself rapidly changing direction, and which does not know precisely where it is in 3D space - GPS is not fast enough) at one particular target. The rate at which data has to be handed off from the DAS to the missile is going to have to be pretty high, and at some point DAS is going to be telling the missile, automatically, to kill what it can see.

What could possibly go wrong?

Also, I doubt that JDRADM will be smaller than AIM-120 (when and if it appears). The kinematic imperatives of an ARM (high speed, low level, large warhead) simply drive it in the other direction.

F-35 is designed to meet a post-Gulf War USAF requirement for a super F-117 with daylight survivability (SA and self defense), all weather, moving target capability (AESA/SAR), and some ability to swing into a Day Two role with a larger variety of external weapons. It will probably do this reasonably well, at whatever price.

 

[BDF]

By the time the enemy design a radar powerful enough to identify and track the f-35, a VLO platform at significant and tactical distance by today measure, how far can the f-35's radar will track a non-stealthy target by that time then? Assuming that down 15 years from now, the opponent's radar development is comparable with our own radar development, f-35 will still be able to see the target first, and in turn able to force its terms on the opponent, maintaining its advantages.

The case will not be that much different now or 20 years from now.

I’m not convinced. I’m not talking about individual fighter radars or even large aperture airborne arrays on AWACS platforms I’m talking about cooperative engagement techniques such as composite tracking, networked sensors/platforms, low frequency radars, ELINT etc. For the most part current fighter and small platform VLO defeat these threats individually but as the threat changes with further network integration and computing power increases tactical surprise and freedom of action will diminish. No longer will platforms and sensors share tracks but will instead share hits from VLO “flashes”, compiling a picture from these hits and cuing high power arrays or other sensors.

Current LO technology is not a cloaking device and fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 are usually considered to be four lobe designs where the major RCS spikes associated with planform alignment and other shaping techniques directs the majority of return energy. The key questions about current designs is how large each lobe is in intensity and how much scintillation each one has (how wide they are in bearing/azimuth). Also important questions are how robust are the designs to variation in frequencies and aspect changes in those various frequencies. Lower frequency radars are a different problem as they operate in frequencies which will cause some resonance in various shaping features and thus can be used for detection and cuing as they aren’t reliant on sniffing for VLO flashes and can simply detect LO targets outright.

VLO is and will remain a critical asset for years to come and will do so even past the time frame I’m talking about but it is not infallible. As time goes on, tactics will have to evolve and other capabilities will have to be added to support these assets in the future (unfortunately we canceled CCJ yet again). My concern is that we haven’t bought enough of the high end F-22s -- which is more survivable and capable in some critical mission sets -- and are going to be reliant on a largely F-35 based force which is a platform though very capable was not intended to operate on its own. I’ll feel more comfortable if we successfully develop a viable NGB force but history has shown us that’s been pretty darn difficult to do.

BDF

 

[BDF]

Also, I doubt that JDRADM will be smaller than AIM-120 (when and if it appears). The kinematic imperatives of an ARM (high speed, low level, large warhead) simply drive it in the other direction.

From what I’ve been reading JDRADM is heading towards a 500lb weapon to fulfill the long range A-A and as you mentioned A-G roles. Being that we haven’t hit a formal RFP yet I’m willing to be it’ll be 2020-2025 timeframe at the earliest for IOC. It’ll be interesting to see how many they can cram into the bays of the F-22 and F-35. The F-22 has depth issues (particularly at the front where the inlet intrudes) and the F-35 from geometry (deep but not very wide except at the bottom and only one hard point at the top).

BDF

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe G is overselling the F-35 here.

Wrong. What I'm doing is NOT underselling it. There is a crucial difference. I'm giving it a fair playing field and offering the capabilities as described with a reasonable amount of validation. What I'm not doing is dismissing its capabilities and trying to assess it in the context of legacy and historical requirements or completely sledging it for whatever crazy personal reason..

However, it is (so far) entirely untested outside the simulator. Moreover, the JSF does not carry AIM-9X internally as yet, and the AIM-120 simply is not designed for close-range HOBS - it accelerates too fast resulting in a large turning radius. So, at the very least, you need an internal AIM-9X, which means a trapeze and rail launcher.

The RAAF demonstrated a few weeks ago a live AIM-132 ASRAAM HOBS shot using JHMCS. Besides the simulators being used today are 100 times more accurate than those used 10 years ago. The flight test regime for the F-35 is the most unexciting in the world because the sim has produced all the data to date to such high levels of realism. Further AIM-120D is being designed for an improved HOBS capability. AIM-9X is no unrealistic but of course you won’t be able to leverage the large internal volume options. Plus of course there is JDRADM. No user is expecting the F-35 to fly and fight with the weapons of the 1990s.

Finally, the complexity of the task is staggering.

So is generating a big SAR map, so is using your AESA for zoom in ESM, etc, etc. Which is why the F-35 is loaded with high power processors and uses C++ software so quazillons of lines of code can be written for it. However two way data link HOBS really isn't that hard. The DAS provides a target track and an algorithm determines an intercept profile for that track and the data link directs the missile to that profile. You wouldn’t want to do it with an abacus but the systems onboard these aircraft will have no troubles.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Agreed but as I mentioned earlier while the F-22 is suffering from DMS issues on some components architecturally the two jets are nearly identical and in fact the F-22 was intentionally designed for an easy hardware upgrade path. One big attraction of the JSF program was that it was leveraging technology from the ATF program and because of that common architecture the F-22 would be able to benefit itself and leverage the newer JSF technology for upgrade spirals of its own.

The big problem for the F-22 upgrade is not hardware but software. It is coded in machine language which is a rapidly dying language. So this will push up the cost of adding in new capability to the F-22 and eventually reach a date when the last of the machine language coders retire in which it won’t even be possible to sustain the aircraft.

Yes it can classify tracks by type (aircraft, missile, ground vehicle etc.) and may even be able to further classify by subtype (fighter, transport, etc.) but I haven’t seen the ability to ID a target specifically (Su-27, F-15 etc.) attributed to it. All the information I’ve read indicate that it essentially blue force tracks and detects possible threats but cannot ID the target on its own. This is the essential point because despite all the wonderful technology that is now coming online in the next few years you will still have to transverse an ID matrix to authorize a BVR shot.

DAS like all optical seeker head systems can do as much as the software lets it. The current spec for F-35 is only detect friend or foe aircraft and missile. This is not the limitation of the system. The basic operating system for DAS is detect all moving targets and then classifies into the limited spec requirements and bin those that don't fit the target set. There is more than enough capability within the system to add new software like more capable target recognition for identifying make and model, stationary targets and other battlefield effects like gunfire and lasers. As long as there are enough pixels it can do it. Northrop Grumman are alluding to all sorts of special capabilities that they are finding they can do as they play with the system.