The F-35 thread

[Unhappy1]

Another thing: The F-35 was never designed to be an air superiority fighter. It's really silly to compare it to older aircraft that are. It has a rather different mission, as exhausitively discussed in other F-35 threads.

FAKE NEWS!!!

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

"Concurrent Development" is intentional, so critising the F-35 for "not being ready" is based on ignorance

While everything else you say sounds reasonable enough, this bit sounds like excuses for being late. I should know, I have about a decade of successful project management under the belt.

There was a committed and widely published project plan for all the various phases of development of the F-35. When a project misses multiple milestones and pushes out future milestones further and further into the future, it is late, simple as that.

Now it might be late because the requirements changed or it might be late because lessons were learned and applied along the way to get a far superior end result than initially envisioned. Those are good reasons for being late, but it does not change the fact that it is late.

 

[Blu82]

Airforce 1 can be intercepted, that does not mean its designed to win a dogfight.


The cheap Russian hardware will go up against air to air fighters like the F-15 if there is a fight. These would normally be not far behind in F35s escorting bombers. The F35s would be aiming for the SAM sites. By the time the enemy know they are there they are already leaving. So if by "interception" could a Russian jet randomly come across a F35 by chance and a fight start? It might, but thats not the scenario the hardware was designed for.

A normal air to air fight between a F35 and Russian hardware would be something like:

US Command : We pick up two fighters 9 km East
F-35: firing missiles once you have a lock on them.
Russian Fighter pilot : I wonder where everybody is...
The end.

I have an easy solution bring any of the following, bring 5 UCAV's / 5 Mig29's / 5 Gripen's / 5 of anything that can fire a missile or gun and the F35 is dead.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Tell that to the pilot in Turkey. Poor chap didnt even know an F15 was shooting at him. Guess those Walmart bought GPS`s didnt work as advertised.

1: the pilot and radar imagery showed he was in Syria
2: he was in a bomber, being attacked by a fighter
3: answer the question, don't throw in red herrings about Turkey vs Russia, in the history of conflicts, who's been more successful overall with USA vs Russia?

 

[w1z4rd]

I have an easy solution bring any of the following, bring 5 UCAV's / 5 Mig29's / 5 Gripen's / 5 of anything that can fire a missile or gun and the F35 is dead.

My money would be on the F35 platform, it may have to go back to rearm. You can put 100 Mig29s there, they cant shoot down down what they cant see (and assuming they can see it), they cant get close enough for their weapons to lock.

 

[Arthur]

I have an easy solution bring any of the following, bring 5 UCAV's / 5 Mig29's / 5 Gripen's / 5 of anything that can fire a missile or gun and the F35 is dead.

Reality: Your "UCAV's / 5 Mig29's / 5 Gripen's" will be smoking on the ground before they even realise there's an F-35 in the air.

 

[access]

The "F-35 will never see a dogfight" angle is a relatively new one AFAIK, the F-35A is certainly intended for some dogfighting: http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/lockheed_martin_f35.htm


You don't fit a 25mm cannon to something and claim it will replace the F-16 if it isn't meant to be good at close quarter air combat.

ah right, i misread the cannon part.

i was thinking about the sidewinders. or are dogfights now only done with cannons for some reason.

 

[Blu82]

My money would be on the F35 platform, it may have to go back to rearm. You can put 100 Mig29s there, they cant shoot down down what they cant see (and assuming they can see it), they cant get close enough for their weapons to lock.

I now have a gap in the air defense which I can exploit to shoot down the AWAC forcing all US aircraft to start using their own radars to find targets negating their stealth capabilities.

Pretty picture's source

 

[buka001]

I am not a fan of the F-35.

Various milestones and development goals have been missed and requirements have been downgraded.

So many aspects have been downgraded or reduced, from turning radius, to weapons load, type of weapons, to data/ software capabilities.

With an unfueled combat radius, the F-35C faces a challenge in an A2/AD environment (China for example) as ground based or ship based Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles outrange the fighter. Hence, a swarm of missiles can be launched at a Carrier Strike Group from further out than the fighter can reach.

The Navy now have a costly issue pending with regards to the landing gear issue when the C model is launched. Never seen a jet bounce like that on launch.

However, given the current state of development, the USAF, USMC and US Navy have little option, but to go with the F-35. Otherwise a sever "fighter" gap will result.

Trump's suggestion to Boeing to look at modifying an F-18 to match an F-35 is the most pointless suggestion ever. Boeing already developed an aircraft with the specifications for the JSF programme. It was called the X-32. Aside from it violating the rule that if a jet looks good, it will fly good, it had various deficiencies compared to the F-35.

Where I do see the F-35 working well is as a stealthy data fusion platform, providing real-time data to 4th gen fighters (F-15C operating as missile trucks), UCAV's, ground forces, naval forces or even cruise missiles.

If Trump wants to save real money with the F-35, i would reduce the number of F-35's and push that saving into the development of UCAV's. Swarms of drones could overwhelm heavy Air defense sites (S-400), thereby allowing the more costly bombers (B-2, B-21, B-1 and B-52) to get through, with fighter escorts.

There is some movement on the swarm technology. A recent test looks like a step in the right direction at least - https://theaviationist.com/2017/01/...s-unleash-swarm-of-mini-drones-in-first-test/

 

[Arthur]

While everything else you say sounds reasonable enough, this bit sounds like excuses for being late. I should know, I have about a decade of successful project management under the belt.

There was a committed and widely published project plan for all the various phases of development of the F-35. When a project misses multiple milestones and pushes out future milestones further and further into the future, it is late, simple as that.

Now it might be late because the requirements changed or it might be late because lessons were learned and applied along the way to get a far superior end result than initially envisioned. Those are good reasons for being late, but it does not change the fact that it is late.

Much is made in the media about missing milestones. But this was anticipated at the very start of the program, when Concurrent Development (CD) as a concept was discussed and adopted.

CD has ever been done before. It is risky. But it provides flexibility that is required in this time of rapid technological development. Lessons are being learned all the time - and these lessons will make all the difference as the platform begins to solidify. The cost is HUGE, but the US can afford it. Or rather, to maintain superiority, the can't afford to not do it.

(Marvellous as the F-22 is, it has less computing power than today's consumer game consoles, a critical shortcoming where situational awareness and threat identification are the deciders.)

Read this report (pdf) from August 2016 (based on the views of the 31 USAF pilots who have actually flown the F-35) on the status of the pogram. It has some useful insights.

 

[The_Assimilator]

Clueless people talking about 5th generation fighters dogfighting with onboard cannons, that's the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight - useful only if you literally have no other ammo left (if your opponent does, they're just gonna shoot you down with a missile), or you've let your opponent get way too close (you royally f**ked up). The US has been trying to kill the onboard fighter cannon since the 1960s in favour of missiles, the only thing that prevented them from doing that back then was that missiles weren't reliable enough, the only thing preventing it now are the crusty old fogies now in command positions who remember the days when missiles weren't reliable.

Complaining that the F-35 can't dogfight is like complaining that a bus can't drive off-road.

There is some movement on the swarm technology. A recent test looks like a step in the right direction at least - https://theaviationist.com/2017/01/...s-unleash-swarm-of-mini-drones-in-first-test/

Drones are the future, full stop. Just like so many other jobs, "fighter pilot" is going to be obsolete due to automation very soon. The USA is actually in a very good place with drone tech, apart from the Predators and Reapers and now this swarm: they've already proven that an F-16 can be flown pilotlessly. That opens up the possibility of using older airframes as decoys, or bomb/missile trucks, or pretty much whatever... since there's no human pilot to worry about the risk is greatly decreased, and losing older planes doesn't matter because, well, they're old. USA has literally hundreds of airframes sitting around in their boneyards.

And the drones in use now are really really dumb - they're literally remote-controlled. Within the next decade or two they will become fully autonomous, able to learn about the battlefield and share that info with other drones. The USA squadron structure will change dramatically; instead of a number of human pilots and planes, you'll have far fewer human pilots "shepherding" a larger number of drone planes on sorties. The human pilot will hang back and let the drones get into the thick of things, s/he will only intervene if the threat profile changes or the drone programming encounters something it can't handle. Eventually the human won't even be necessary.

 

[Blu82]

Clueless people talking about 5th generation fighters dogfighting with onboard cannons, that's the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight - useful only if you literally have no other ammo left (if your opponent does, they're just gonna shoot you down with a missile), or you've let your opponent get way too close (you royally f**ked up). The US has been trying to kill the onboard fighter cannon since the 1960s in favour of missiles, the only thing that prevented them from doing that back then was that missiles weren't reliable enough, the only thing preventing it now are the crusty old fogies now in command positions who remember the days when missiles weren't reliable.

Complaining that the F-35 can't dogfight is like complaining that a bus can't drive off-road.

Modern missiles can be jammed, decoyed or even destroyed given the way modern counter measure systems are going which is a problem when you only carry 4 internally. The gun offers a versatile fall back weapon which can be used in a ground attack role as well.

 

[access]

Modern missiles can be jammed, decoyed or even destroyed given the way modern counter measure systems are going which is a problem when you only carry 4 internally. The gun offers a versatile fall back weapon which can be used in a ground attack role as well.

and then you get missiles that target jammers...

 

[garyc]

The cannon does make some sense. When the F-35 opens the bay doors to launch a missile all stealth disappears and the enemy air defence system starts to take notice. This is what happened when the F-117 was shot down by Yugoslav forces in the Balkans war. It was coming in for an attack run, opened the bay and got targeted. Having the option of using the gun will increase the tactical flexibility in hostile environments. It is notable that this gun has been enhanced to also allow for more effectiveness in the ground attack role.

Another scenario may be when the enemy aircraft gets close, as could happen if it is also using stealth technology. The F-35 pilot will have to open the bay to fire a missile. If the aircraft is maneuvering then the aerodynamic change will provide a disturbance that needs to be accounted for, delaying the response to the threat. This will give an advantage to the opposing aircraft.

 

[Blu82]

and then you get missiles that target jammers...

Those don't exist all the ARM missiles are designed to take out ground based air defense radars not jamming sources or even aircraft.

 

[access]

Those don't exist all the ARM missiles are designed to take out ground based air defense radars not jamming sources or even aircraft.

so an amraam doesnt exist

The missile also features the ability to "Home on Jamming,"[11] giving it the ability to switch over from active radar homing to passive homing – homing on jamming signals from the target aircraft.

 

[Nanfeishen]

The cannon does make some sense. When the F-35 opens the bay doors to launch a missile all stealth disappears and the enemy air defence system starts to take notice. This is what happened when the F-117 was shot down by Yugoslav forces in the Balkans war. It was coming in for an attack run, opened the bay and got targeted. Having the option of using the gun will increase the tactical flexibility in hostile environments. It is notable that this gun has been enhanced to also allow for more effectiveness in the ground attack role.

Another scenario may be when the enemy aircraft gets close, as could happen if it is also using stealth technology. The F-35 pilot will have to open the bay to fire a missile. If the aircraft is maneuvering then the aerodynamic change will provide a disturbance that needs to be accounted for, delaying the response to the threat. This will give an advantage to the opposing aircraft.

This ^^

People somehow equate stealth with "invisibility" , which it certainly is not. Its no different from wearing a ghillie suit, but then having to stand up to take a shot.

While the F35 may offer some advantages, i am sure it will fair well against the standard 3rd world countries and 2nd or 3rd generation aircraft it will most likely face, considering the track record of conflicts the U.S. has been in.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Read this report (pdf) from August 2016 (based on the views of the 31 USAF pilots who have actually flown the F-35) on the status of the pogram. It has some useful insights.

Cheers, that's a much more interesting read than some of the grand unsubstantiated claims of armchair critics/fanboys alike. They also mention how a F-117A was shot down due to complacency / arrogance on their part (same incident mentioned by garyc above).

So the real experts know there are no guarantees in combat, I wonder if they haven't perhaps published too much about their planned strategies for the F-35 though, gives the enemy plenty of time to devise ways to counter it even with older technology. Especially considering Chinese and Russian EMP capabilities, what happens if they "blind" an F-35 squadron?

 

[Blu82]

so an amraam doesnt exist

So how would an AMRAAM target a jamming source?

Edit:
An AMRAAM has a home on jam mode which is a attempt to get around jamming but it never directly targets the jamming source.

If at any point during the missiles time-of-flight the target starts to use electronic counter-measures (ECM) the AIM-120B can switch its tracking mode to home-on-jam. When this occurs the AIM-120B homes in on the location of the jamming signal, guiding it to the point where the onboard radar 'burns through' the jamming and re-acquires the radar. When in the home-on-jam mode the AIM-120B interlaces the active pulses of the radar with passive guidance from the home-on-jam equipment.

 

[buka001]

Clueless people talking about 5th generation fighters dogfighting with onboard cannons, that's the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight - useful only if you literally have no other ammo left (if your opponent does, they're just gonna shoot you down with a missile), or you've let your opponent get way too close (you royally f**ked up). The US has been trying to kill the onboard fighter cannon since the 1960s in favour of missiles, the only thing that prevented them from doing that back then was that missiles weren't reliable enough, the only thing preventing it now are the crusty old fogies now in command positions who remember the days when missiles weren't reliable.

Complaining that the F-35 can't dogfight is like complaining that a bus can't drive off-road.

Even as late as 1991, air-air missiles were still unreliable. If you review all the air to air encounters between the US and Iraq, reports are fraught with missile failures.

Note that the F-35 maneuverability was originally specified to far exceed any 4th gen Fighter. Lockheed did intend for it to be a competitive dogfighter, however reality has set in. The F-35 will be capable, but not as a face-to-face dogfighter.

The fact that the F-35 will now only be able to carry a maximum of 4 missiles in full stealth mode, puts it at a marked disadvantage in any BVR combat situation.

The F-35 should only fire missiles in an emergency self-defense situation.