The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[quellish]

One day the F-35 will be obsolete. At that point Stealth may still be very viable advantage, but it may have evolved to the point where the F-35 can no longer compete. (in the same way that the F-117 was retired, but as we can see stealth is still a big deal) The ante has been upped. Just like how all fighters have jet engines, the genie is not going back into the bottle. once everyone has LO/VLO and detection systems everyone will evolve all over again, and we will have endless debates about who has better radars, and who has stealthier skin. dogfighting will come up about as often as we discuss rigging and wooden wings in this thread.

I am not sure what you mean here in regards to the F-117. The F-117, for a number of reasons, was getting (more) expensive to keep around. The F-117 fleet was competing with other programs for dollars and money. The aircraft themselves still had plenty of life in them, and had in fact just received a set of upgrades to increase their longevity.
Money that had been going into the F-117 fleet ended up going into other programs.

 

[quellish]

I think the F-35 does it in a LPI way : which is kind of important.

Only with other F-35s, which is an important thing to remember.

 

[quellish]

There are physical limits to both optical sensors and what can be detected by radar at what range no matter how much computer power you throw it. The whole point of Stealth is to sneak up on the enemy and you can't do that with your Radar pinging away giving away your position. So with Stealth aircraft you are limited to how and when you use your radar much the same way a submarine is limited in how it can use its Sonar and pierscope.

The point of stealth is survivability, which is not the same as "sneaking up on the enemy". That is the distinction that Deptula was making in the article you quoted earlier. Knowing that a B-2 is around isn't as useful as being able to track and hit it.

Somehow it is always stealth, as if defeating stealth were primarily a problem of insufficient processing power.

In some cases it very much is, for instance picking a LO target like a cruise missile out of ground clutter.

If the caveat for the Typhoon winning is that stealth is suddenly detectable what does that tell you?

Anything is detectable at a short enough range.

 

[kcran567]

sorry mods repeated post

 

[kcran567]

But Hostage says that while stealth technology continues to evolve, this will not be forever. "I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns somewhere," he says. "And that's why we're already looking at what defines the sixth-generation."

exactly, like how dog fighting evolved and won't be forever. so Typhoons and F-22s get you diminishing returns for what they cost. like how dogfighting evolved to using sensors and missiles rather than risky EM turning contests.

Old habits die hard. Where's all the fun if theres no twisting turning WWII style dogfights? I get the point though. Maybe it is finally the beginning of the end of dogfights at close range. I think fighter pilots are always going to try to dogfight each others planes to see which one is best even if they arent used in combat that way. Funny.

 

[kcran567]

But Hostage says that while stealth technology continues to evolve, this will not be forever. "I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns somewhere," he says. "And that's why we're already looking at what defines the sixth-generation."

For all we know the requirement of a 6th generation fighter is space flight, or mach 3+ capability, something that not even an F-22 can match. Stealth becoming less important in the future doesn't automatically mean that a Typhoon somehow wins by default. It means it just slides further into obsolescence.
One day the F-35 will be obsolete. At that point Stealth may still be very viable advantage, but it may have evolved to the point where the F-35 can no longer compete. (in the same way that the F-117 was retired, but as we can see stealth is still a big deal) The ante has been upped. Just like how all fighters have jet engines, the genie is not going back into the bottle. once everyone has LO/VLO and detection systems everyone will evolve all over again, and we will have endless debates about who has better radars, and who has stealthier skin. dogfighting will come up about as often as we discuss rigging and wooden wings in this thread.

But Hostage says that while stealth technology continues to evolve, this will not be forever. "I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns somewhere," he says. "And that's why we're already looking at what defines the sixth-generation."

Thats interesting. I don't know if the 6th generation will be hypersonic or a waverider or something like that, that is probably the plan for a 7th generation though. I think Mach 3+ is too much of a leap of generations. The change will be incremental. Maybe higher supercruise for sure. Something the F-35 is getting criticised for is poor supercruise compared to the f-22.
The 6th gen will just take things the f-35 does even further...more low observables including visual stealth and maybe the precursor of an energy weapon to shoot down other planes and missiles. Just a guess.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I would genuinely be interested in seeing Rafale, GRipen, and Typhoon coming up with dedicated jammers like the EF-18. If you want to talk about actual alternatives to stealth via jamming, you may want to offer serious solutions. If the predictions of stealth obsolescence are true, its a matter of making the airplanes and waiting for the "bad news" to befall LM.

 

[piko1]

The last thing I want to add, is even as detection systems improve how many countries can afford to constantly upgrade and buy the latest and greatest? every year new, improved cars come out. do we buy a new car every year? or do we buy a new car with the idea that it will last us about 10 years? The country that can constantly afford to upgrade their entire system with the latest and greatest stealth detecting tech, must have more money than god. Do governments clamor to buy the latest and greatest at all times? is that why as piko pointed out Bulgaria flies MiG-31s? Even if the Pak-Fa is the greatest thing to ever fly, how many can actually be procured? the F-22 is the king of the skies and the US couldn't afford even 200 of them.

If you can buy the worlds most awesome stealth detecting radar, but can only afford 6 of them, where do you put them? and how long will they last? I'm guessing not past 24 hours, especially as anything fixed like that can be targeted by things like cruise missiles. They won't be in fighters I will tell you that. You are creating a tactical problem for your opponent that is unsolvable. You want him to have to decide whether he wants to lose an arm to save a leg, or a leg to save an arm.

I didn't think it was any secret that if an F-35 tries to out typhoon a typhoon, it will come up short, just like if an F-22 tries to out typhoon a typhoon. Maybe the F-35 has key advantages over the typhoon which is why we are talking about upgrading radars in hopes of detection, and PIRATE meteor shots? If its such an open and shut case of Typhoon superiority why are we concerned? If the caveat for the Typhoon winning is that stealth is suddenly detectable what does that tell you?

TaiidanTomcat Bulgaria is too small for MiG-31 there was idea for 2-3 based here but just idea the MiG-25RB proved that it is small just to land MiG-25 must cross the whole country yes Bulgaria is small the major problem today is not that Bulgaria has no money to buy new planes but that the politicians here are thieves they buy something if they get commission for it and then they left it without support just to mention that MoD ruined the whole army in the past 2 years now they want to buy F-16 MLU from Spain for about 700 million leva (around $500 million ) to replace MiG-29 ??!?!?!? sanity? there is no such thing out here

back on topic if the USSR still existed west Germany and Bulgaria were going to receive PAK-FA first after RF that was the idea back then now by my opinion small country's like Bulgaria would buy cheap alternatives to F-22/35 from China or Russia
as you pointed out you don't buy new car every year you wont Buy Ferrari ( F-35 in this case ) even every what 5-10 years and F-35 is just that shiny Ferrari expensive toy if i could buy only 6 ground based radars of the best to date technology i will cover my country with out problems but i will cut them to only 4 and for gap closer i will use P-18 and Fan Song radars and huh they wont last 24 hours the Kosovo war 98-99 prove that you are wrong plus Bulgarian landscape is like Switzerland and by the way who dears to attack country with 5 nuclear (plus two more in the near feature ) reactor's that can make Prypiat to look like walk in the park ... but if Prypiat was large part of Europe indeed. in a armed conflict with Turkey for instance today we will win we proved that before 100 years we can prove it once more even with the technological disadvantage that we have now

 

[GTX]

This Typhoon vs F-35 debate is quite amusing if one remembers that you are extremely unlikely to ever see them facing off against one another outside of fighter acquisition competitions.

Two Words: RED FLAG


P.S. To those that already suggested the same was true for F-22 vs SU-30MKI or F-22 vs Typhoon comparison engagements, pls refer to my two word comment above.

I meant in actual armed conflict...

 

[lantinian]

This Typhoon vs F-35 debate is quite amusing if one remembers that you are extremely unlikely to ever see them facing off against one another outside of fighter acquisition competitions.

Two Words: RED FLAG


P.S. To those that already suggested the same was true for F-22 vs SU-30MKI or F-22 vs Typhoon comparison engagements, pls refer to my two word comment above.

I meant in actual armed conflict...

According to mission planners and participants, RED FLAG is designed to be tougher on pilots than actual armed conflict.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

This Typhoon vs F-35 debate is quite amusing if one remembers that you are extremely unlikely to ever see them facing off against one another outside of fighter acquisition competitions.

Two Words: RED FLAG


P.S. To those that already suggested the same was true for F-22 vs SU-30MKI or F-22 vs Typhoon comparison engagements, pls refer to my two word comment above.

I meant in actual armed conflict...

According to mission planners and participants, RED FLAG is designed to be tougher on pilots than actual armed conflict.

Right but even then there are going to be ROEs and not everyone who plays shows all their cards if you get my meaning. We have photos of EF-18 with an F-22 "kill" we have the famous "raptor in a gun pip" we have a report of F-22s being beaten down by german EFs, of F-16s beating down EFs, We have Flankers, and Bisons beating F-15s in India, but the F-16s beating the indians at Nellis, There is a great story where a low flying C-130 happened to find himself behind some "red fighters" at Nellis and called "Fox-2!" over the radio. There are caveats, and circumstances, and rules, and context that needs to be applied to each and every sortie and who knows where the truth really lies. F-15s get downed in mock combat all the time but they have yet to lose a single aircraft in RW A2A. the Raptor is supposed to have a K/D ratio of like 250-1 or something like that. seeing as the F-15 is like 150-0 maybe reality will be something like 500-1.

I mean in all seriousness if theres an exercise where the F-35 beats the Typhoon 500 times in a row is that really going to change any minds? If ROE forbids HOBS or BVR shot and forces the F-35 to fight close in WVR and the Typhoon wins 500 times in a row does that prove anything?

For everyone here that preaches "dogfighting above all else" we seem to have forgotten that one of "rules" is "don't fight his fight, fight your fight" In other words don't turn zero and go vertical against MiGs. Nothing can turn with a Zero so how did some "fat pudgy slow" wildcat ever beat them? they won through superior tactics, and team work, and not trying to fight their fight. Wildcats had advantages zeros didn't and vice versa. (this by the way is before missiles and SAMs and other high tech electronic gadgetry, when kinematics mattered most)

 

[lantinian]

I am not sure if this link was posted earlier but its quite relevant for the topic and well worth a read.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-lockheed-claims-f-35-kinematics-better-than-or-equal-to-typhoon-or-super-hornet-382078/

A few of the more interesting quotes to me.

The F-35 can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane" with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft's envelope with a full load of weapons is "inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon, which most would say has the best performance of those four fourth-gen jets

I think its fair to compare the full internal weapons load of the F-35 to the Typhoon. After all a non stealthy aircraft will likely have to encounter much more air treats ( need 3x missiles) , take more roundabout approach ( need fuel tanks) and fight trough more ground targets ( need 2x more bombs)

More important is the question of how the reduction in performance impacts aircraft survivability. "So what if you can accelerate better than a [F-16] Viper or Typhoon, can you live against an SA-20?" asks the second F-22 pilot.

I wonder if that is a stab at the lack of supercruise.

Lockheed declined to compare F-35 performance to clean configuration fourth-generation fighters saying such comparisons are irrelevant. "This comparison doesn't mean much, because a clean fourth-gen isn't carrying weapons," the second F-22 pilot says.

[/size]I think Lockheed will be able to eventually make its case in exercises such as Red Flag if the F-35 is able to successfully defend itself without having to drop of its bombs early to engage enemy fighters or evade SAM launches.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

And that whole "I can complete my missions without having to pitch my bombs and fight or runaway" is a very under rated feature in my book. How does a Typhoon loaded with bombs and fuel do against an SA-20?

Just to add to my previous posts, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of real world east vs west aircraft encounters with very clear winners and losers, and even though the west has come out on top in a majority of cases (no offense piko, but MiG-29s to my knowledge have yet to down an American made fighter) the reasons and excuses are as numerous as the losses. I think my favorites though are a tie between the eastern aircraft being watered down and near useless, or just good old fashioned racism based on who was behind the controls.

 

[JFC Fuller]

And that whole "I can complete my missions without having to pitch my bombs and fight or runaway" is a very under rated feature in my book. How does a Typhoon loaded with bombs and fuel do against an SA-20?

I don't think it's underrated, in fact it is pretty much the core of the programme. The ability to undertake long range precision strike with a high probability of penetrating advanced air defences and internal weapons carriage is central to that capability (for both RCS reduction and performance preservation) combined with situational awareness provided by sensor fusion and the EW suite.

In fact the only western TACAIR platform flying today I can think of that could potentially make a better strike platform, if it were to ever receive the required upgrades, is the F-22.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

And that whole "I can complete my missions without having to pitch my bombs and fight or runaway" is a very under rated feature in my book. How does a Typhoon loaded with bombs and fuel do against an SA-20?

I don't think it's underrated, in fact it is pretty much the core of the programme. The ability to undertake long range precision strike with a high probability of penetrating advanced air defences and internal weapons carriage is central to that capability (for both RCS reduction and performance preservation) combined with situational awareness provided by sensor fusion and the EW suite.

No I wasn't articulate there.. I mean its an excellent feature that no one seems to consider. under rated= does not get enough credit. Over rated= gets too much credit. the F-35 is a lot harder to "mission kill" as in bad guy shows up on radar and everyone pitches their bombs to mix it up or bail out and try again later as was standard in the past. You lived to fight another day but so did your target.

 

[quellish]

Much like the swim in a triathlon, you don't win with a great swim, but you lose without it. Thats the future of stealth. In the future you may not be able to win with it alone, but without it you lose. its one more thing that top tier fighters must take into account. Which is where things are now if you look around at the J-20 and Pak Fa and F-22. If you are talking about being a viable 21st century warplane you better have stealth.

Stealth, like triathlon, is far more nuanced (see Chrissie Wellington, Greg Welch, Norman Stadler, SENIOR TREND, etc.).
The outer mold line of an aircraft is only a small part of it's *operational* signature. The B-2 and F-117 had excellent results on the pole, but that did not translate to real world mission success without the support of infrastructure like excellent mission planning tools - somewhat like really nailing your nutrition in a triathlon to prevent disaster late in the race. Both of these platforms used mission planning tools (and in the case of the B-2, a defensive management system) which presented the optimal signature to threats. Signature data came from sources like in flight signature measurement of individual aircraft using assets like DYCOMS and the NT-43 or AIRSAR, as well as on the ground signature measurements from systems like CLOVerS.

The F-35, in contrast, relies on ALIS, which is strictly a model-based toolset. It does not perform actual measurements of the aircraft signature. Only one operator of the F-35 has the infrastructure in place (or planned) to support signature measurements on flight or on the ground, and it is unlikely that the operator would be able to handle the volume of anything but a small force.
ALIS signature data is explicitly not allowed to be used for mission planning, there are actually directives indicating as such (I do not have those handy at the moment).

There are many, many interesting papers and reports on finding the optimal route through defended airspace for VLO/LO aircraft. Strangely, it does not look as though the F-35 program is planning to make that part of the package.

- Mission planning system will not be using signature data from real world measurement of the aircraft performing the mission
- ALIS signature estimates from model are not to be used for mission planning - if mission planning system will be using signature data, it must come from a more general model of the aircraft type and configuration.

So either the aircraft has some extreme, all aspect, broadband stealth that makes these kinds of support moot(!), or... it doesn't and does not need it (Hmm...).

It's also noteworthy that only three countries have a full scale dynamic RCS measurement capability.

 

[2IDSGT]

Apologies if posted already.

Looking Forward to an F35 Future – Part 4 (Down to Earth with a Bump)

In Part 3, I looked upon the F35B with an optimistic eye, reflecting on the potential it provides to the UK armed forces.

But, I don’t think anyone is under any illusions that as a programme it is far from rosy, significantly late and over budget which will inevitably lead to a combination of few aircraft, higher unit prices, specifications compromise, cost to back fill whilst we are waiting and a painful gestation that is still not over.

One aspect of the F35B Joint Strike Fighter programme that sets it apart from many others is the degree of transparency and scrutiny this enables.

In general, I think this is brilliant because although there some downsides, the upsides massively outweigh them.

It is a model the UK would do well to emulate.

This transparency does however, result in every last minor problem being amplified, taken out of context and reported on with a negative slant.
We should not forget that the F35 Lightning II is a complex and multinational development programme that is pushing outwards against existing boundaries, the point being that in development, we should expect problems to be discovered, major and minor alike.

On the whole, better to find issues now than when in service (concurrency critics, stand fast at the back for now)

One on hand we have people that think an actuator failing in less than its expected cycle count is grounds for cancelling the whole programme and on the other we have people that think an aircraft with very little weight growth margin and a failure to meet certain key performance parameters is just a few teething problems, move along, nothing to see here.

The reality I suspect, is somewhere in between.

This part of the series is going to look at current status, warts and all, and cost issues...

More at the jump. http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/01/looking-forward-to-an-f35-future-part-4-down-to-earth-with-a-bump/

 

[GTX]

I meant in actual armed conflict...

According to mission planners and participants, RED FLAG is designed to be tougher on pilots than actual armed conflict.

You are still missing my point which is that many of these discussions seem to be assuming that the Typhoon and F-35 will go up against each other in actual armed conflict, not a fly off, not an exercise. What I was pointing out is that this, though theoretically possible is in fact extremely unlikely to ever occur. Therefore in some respects this who debate is somewhat academic only...it will never really matter!

 

[sferrin]

I meant in actual armed conflict...

According to mission planners and participants, RED FLAG is designed to be tougher on pilots than actual armed conflict.

You are still missing my point which is that many of these discussions seem to be assuming that the Typhoon and F-35 will go up against each other in actual armed conflict, not a fly off, not an exercise. What I was pointing out is that this, though theoretically possible is in fact extremely unlikely to ever occur. Therefore in some respects this who debate is somewhat academic only...it will never really matter!

Stuff like that has happend in the past. Mirage 2000 vs F-16, F-16 vs F-14 (I think).

 

[bobbymike]

Speaking of which F-22s and Eurofighter;

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/raptor-and-typhoons-train-toge.html

 

[Broncazonk]

As of today, all F-35 variants are grounded:

"Inspectors found a crack in a low-pressure turbine blade aboard an Air Force-model F-35A on Tuesday, Hawn said in a statement, and engineers are sending it back to manufacturer Pratt & Whitney in Connecticut for “thorough evaluation and root cause analysis.”

How long does it take to do a root cause analysis of a crack in a low-pressure turbine blade?

Bronc

 

[GTX]

It depends upon the details of the crack. Given Pratt & Whitney have decades of experience in such things though and have already done a lot of their own testing and analysis, it may well be a very short period of time.

 

[GTX]

Actually addendum: "...engine analysis should take "roughly" a week..." from here.

 

[2IDSGT]

It depends upon the details of the crack. Given Pratt & Whitney have decades of experience in such things though and have already done a lot of their own testing and analysis, it may well be a very short period of time.

Damn, that was the one thing that hadn't been giving any trouble.

 

[GTX]

I wouldn't be too worried. Engines such as this get cracks all the time (think about the harsh environment the blades are in). In this case though, they are just being extra cautious because of the developmental stage of the program.

 

[Broncazonk]

The Navy Times article says, "Bates added that the engine with the crack has 700 total engine operating hours, with 409 of those accrued in flight. He believes the engine analysis should take "roughly" a week."

291 hours of the 700 hours of total engine were not accrued in flight. Does that suggest that this engine was subjected to some kind of additional (perhaps abusive) testing beyond what we would otherwise expect? What would account for 291 non-flight hours on this engine?

Bronc

 

[GTX]

Ground runs, engine test cell runs etc. There is nothing to indicate that anything "abusive" would have occurred and to even suggest it is ridiculous.

 

[Broncazonk]

GTX: You're missing the point entirely...

Bronc

 

[GTX]

Then what is the point???

 

[2IDSGT]

Then what is the point???

I think you're supposed to weep and gnash your teeth or something.

 

[GTX]

Then what is the point???

I think you're supposed to weep and gnash your teeth or something.

Oh...sorry, didn't get the memo... ;D

 

[Broncazonk]

Well... To begin with, "Does that suggest that this engine was subjected to some kind of additional (perhaps abusive) testing beyond what we would otherwise expect?" is a question. Questions are not suggestions. Questions are questions.

So a reply such as, let's see, here's one: "There is nothing to indicate that anything "abusive" would have occurred and to even suggest it is ridiculous," is a non sequitur at best, and gibberish at worst. :-\

Bronc

 

[2IDSGT]

Well... To begin with, "Does that suggest that this engine was subjected to some kind of additional (perhaps abusive) testing beyond what we would otherwise expect?" is a question. Questions are not suggestions. Questions are questions.

Fine then. I guess one of Dr. Gilmore's test requirements was that they run the thing for long periods on the ground while he threw rocks in the engine.

 

[chuck4]

Throwing rocks at the plane would damage the fan and compressor blades before they damage the turbine blades.

I am sure at this stage of development the planes run on the ground a lot for various tests and validations.

 

[bobbymike]

I think what Bronc is asking is if the engine goes through any testing that would be considered 'out of the ordinary' abusive being one way to put it.

I read somewhere that engines are throttled to A/B to military power to idle and back and forth to induce flame outs etc (I could be wrong as I cannot find the source)

I think that is what he was asking although I believe those engines never end up in an actual aircraft.

 

[Broncazonk]

2IDSGT wrote, "I guess one of Dr. Gilmore's test requirements was that they run the thing for long periods on the ground while he threw rocks in the engine."

Heaven's! 2IDSGT, that's a textbook example of ignoratio elenchi. (You will probably need to Google or Wikipedia that.) But anyway, can I use your sentence as an example?

Bronc

 

[2IDSGT]

2IDSGT wrote, "I guess one of Dr. Gilmore's test requirements was that they run the thing for long periods on the ground while he threw rocks in the engine."

Heaven's! 2IDSGT, that's a textbook example of ignoratio elenchi. (You will probably need to Google or Wikipedia that.) But anyway, can I use your sentence as an example?

Bronc

 

[Broncazonk]

So, 2IDSGT is that a yes? Can I use it?

Bronc

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Here I thought all the talk would be about the ADVENT engine

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well... To begin with, "Does that suggest that this engine was subjected to some kind of additional (perhaps abusive) testing beyond what we would otherwise expect?" is a question. Questions are not suggestions. Questions are questions.

So a reply such as, let's see, here's one: "There is nothing to indicate that anything "abusive" would have occurred and to even suggest it is ridiculous," is a non sequitur at best, and gibberish at worst. :-\

Bronc

Questions can imply statements e.g. When did you stop beating your wife?


In this case, there is nothing to suggest there was any extreme activity behind this incident, just normal wear and tear.