F-16.net

LowObservable wrote:

Proverbs 17:28

"Demonstrated incompetent with regard to this subject matter." That's new to me, and really quite amusing.

Youy may end up owing sferrin a new keyboard.

As for the Su-35, we'll see what happens; but as a major derivative, rather than a new aircraft, history would suggest that as long as the money flows in, it won't take as long as an all-new platform; and I'd argue that as a threat benchmark over the life of the program, it's a reasonable choice. And (as usual) most of your comments are about production rate, which was not what I was talking about.

The Su-35 is an obsolete design. PHYSICALLY and ELECTRONICALLY inferior to an F-35. Why the Russians are going to invest in the mass production of a legacy fighter that would almost always be at a disadvantage makes no sense. And even if they, and all the other Su-27 manufacturers retooled their whole lines toward Su-35s the production rates would still be dramatically short of the rate in which F-35s will be rolling of the production lines.

-DA

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

DA's right to a point, in that wide sensor coverage and SRAAMs with 90-degree-off-boresight seekers, slaved to the HMD and able to lock on to targets on the rail, change the endgame.

And as long as it gives up its stealth, the F-35 can carry two such missiles... w00t

LowObservable wrote:

DA's right to a point, in that wide sensor coverage and SRAAMs with 90-degree-off-boresight seekers, slaved to the HMD and able to lock on to targets on the rail, change the endgame.

And as long as it gives up its stealth, the F-35 can carry two such missiles... w00t

No, complete sensor coverage including through the airframe. Also, carrying two external AAMs doesn't mean that the F-35 will be giving up "stealth". It could merge outside the FOV of the threat sensors and the threat would be caught by surprise just the same. But the F-35 is far more likely to choose killing via BVR weapons.

I've seen a lot of Vipers during combat missions and a lot of times they are not even carrying an AIM-9. They usually have AIM-120 on the wingtip rails, a pair of bombs on mid stations and fuel tanks on the inner stations. The outer most station is usually not in use. No one seems to be complaining about that for some reason. Also AFAIK, the F-35 can carry ASRAAM internally and that includes U.S. jets. IIRC it's 2 internal, 2 external on a stealthy pylon developed to preserve the VLO characteristics of the jet much in the same way the external gun pod does.

-DA

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

LO, I have stated this in another threat. Two AIM-132's can still be carried internally, just not 4 like originally planned. (right here on this site: http://www.f-16.net/news_article2762.html). No giving up stealth required. And, I am well aware of lockheed's statement that without internal carriage, it's not "stealth" (a good marketing argument considering they're producing the only such aircraft)... but you can't tell me that something as small as the AIM-132 on the newly designed LO pylons will turn the F-35 into a huge radar target. it may increase the RCS 10 or even 100-fold, but that'll likely still be below 1m^2, which will still be quite hard to detect. The Eurofighter, while not being stealthy by any means, with semi-conformal BVR and two ASRAAM still has a tactically useful reduction of RCS compared to many other legacy and contemporary "4.5" generation western and russian jets. People need to quit acting as if a non-stealthy F-35 is suddenly useless. All other performance parameters, save some fancy airshow tricks, are well within or beyond competitors (both commercially and on the battlefield). I'd bet that the F-35 with two external ASRAAMS and some semi-low observable ordnance (JASSM, and (possibly?) JSOW) would still be harder to detect than a Flanker or Superhornet.

Now if only they would develop a stealthy pod-dispenser for SDB's... Cool

EDIT: DA beat me to it, with fewer words...

"but you can't tell me that something as small as the AIM-132 on the newly designed LO pylons will turn the F-35 into a huge radar target."

Ah. So the LockMart folks who say "if you see external stores it's not stealthy" are full of Mbongo?

The point is that the internal weapons are lock on after launch (LOAL) only, which is more difficult. Hence the AIM-9 bays on the F-22, expensively installed to permit LOBL.

DA: The load-outs you see reflect two facts: the air threat in these theaters is small, and it's expensive lugging AAMs around for no reason.

AeroG33k wrote:

...And, I am well aware of lockheed's statement that without internal carriage, it's not "stealth" (a good marketing argument considering they're producing the only such aircraft)... but you can't tell me that something as small as the AIM-132 on the newly designed LO pylons will turn the F-35 into a huge radar target. it may increase the RCS 10 or even 100-fold, but that'll likely still be below 1m^2, which will still be quite hard to detect.

Well, let's just say that it'll significantly increase the RCS of the F-35. Otherwise there will be no need for internal weapons. I don't think it'll be 100 fold though... probably more like 5~10x which then takes you from 0.0014 class to 0.014 class which is still a magnitude better than a Rafale or Suuperhornet with applique RAM, etc but no longer VLO. In terms of detetability, you are talking about the doubling of the range at which it can be detected by radar... say from 30km to 60km vs a radar which will typically find an F-16 (1.5m class RCS) at about 240km. There is still an advantage there, but it is no longer as overwhelming.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

LowObservable wrote:

"but you can't tell me that something as small as the AIM-132 on the newly designed LO pylons will turn the F-35 into a huge radar target."

Ah. So the LockMart folks who say "if you see external stores it's not stealthy" are full of Mbongo?

The point is that the internal weapons are lock on after launch (LOAL) only, which is more difficult. Hence the AIM-9 bays on the F-22, expensively installed to permit LOBL.

DA: The load-outs you see reflect two facts: the air threat in these theaters is small, and it's expensive lugging AAMs around for no reason.

Quote:

Well, let's just say that it'll significantly increase the RCS of the F-35. Otherwise there will be no need for internal weapons. I don't think it'll be 100 fold though... probably more like 5~10x which then takes you from 0.0014 class to 0.014 class which is still a magnitude better than a Rafale or Suuperhornet with applique RAM, etc but no longer VLO. In terms of detetability, you are talking about the doubling of the range at which it can be detected by radar... say from 30km to 60km vs a radar which will typically find an F-16 (1.5m class RCS) at about 240km. There is still an advantage there, but it is no longer as overwhelming.

Exactly. I didn't meant to imply that LM was full of it. I am well aware it would no longer be "stealthy" but it doesn't go from "INVISIBLE!!!!" to "a pile SH*T flying through the air", which is what some people here make it seem like. Stealth is no longer complete invisibility, but should be regarded as an edge to detect the enemy before he detects you, which means everything in modern air combat. Although, it should be noted that detection range is not a linear function of RCS, but it varies inversely to the square of RCS. So a much larger reduction in RCS is required for a relatively small gain in detection range. Still, a stealthy airframe with external weapons (which, in this case, are small and designed with an LO-launcher in mind) will retain this edge over a non-stealthy aircraft with all of it's weapons being external. I meant to make a clear distinction between "Stealth" and "non-stealthy but still tactically useful RCS." That line is probably going to continue to be blurred with better detection systems.

Without getting into spurious precision about technologies which are both complex and classified, I think it's fair to say that there are three broad categories of RCS reduction.

- Managed signatures. Treated F-18s and F-16s fall into this group, as do Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale and even ITAE's RCS-reduced Sukhoi. The goal here is not to be invisible but to help active EW and decoys do their voodoo. Every dB of echo suppressed at source is a dB that I don't have to cover with jamming energy. (Another benefit is to deny NCTR through jet-engine modulation.)

- F-117/F-22/F-35 LO. No external stores most of the time, all-round RAM, bow-tie signature with the biggest reduction on the nose and tail, greatest effectiveness in the microwave bands.

- B-2, X-47, NGB. No external stores anywhere, no tail, deep RAM perimeter. All-aspect, wideband.

The more that I put anything outside on the F-22/F-35 class, unless it's something very conformal and treated (remember those weapon pods in FB-22 studies), the more it moves towards the F-16/Typhoon class - but without an active jammer or towed decoy. And if it's something really ugly from the RCS viewpoint, like an LGB, that alone has a big enough RCS for anyone to chew on. Now, you can treat weapons (seen a video of it being done with a spray-gun) but that's more compatible with the managed-signatures approach and it's hard to do all-aspect.

AeroG33k wrote:

Exactly. I didn't meant to imply that LM was full of it. I am well aware it would no longer be "stealthy" but it doesn't go from "INVISIBLE!!!!" to "a pile SH*T flying through the air", which is what some people here make it seem like. Stealth is no longer complete invisibility, but should be regarded as an edge to detect the enemy before he detects you, which means everything in modern air combat. Although, it should be noted that detection range is not a linear function of RCS, but it varies inversely to the square of RCS. So a much larger reduction in RCS is required for a relatively small gain in detection range...

In general, the relationship between RCS and detection range is logarithmic. That is to say that for every 10 fold reduction in RCS detection range is halved. So, for instance, when you go from F-16 class RCS (1.5sq-m) to F-35 class (0.0014 sq-m) -- a 1000 fold reduction -- detection range for a given microwave device is roughly reduced to 1/8th its original value.

Going from an F-16 or a Typhoon to an F-35 makes a 180km fighter radar is roughly good for ~22.5 km, a 400km heavy SAM radar is now good for ~50km and a 500km AWACs is now good for ~62.5km. This punches all kinds of holes in the integrated air defense system and renders nearly airtight, interlocking defense grid so full of holes its like a going from a Patriot battery to couple of dudes with MANPADs.

The reason stealth has a great inherent advantage over anti-stealth technologies is that reducing RCS by 1000 fold is difficult but achievable. Increasing radar output by 1000 fold on the other hand is not a feasible pursuit because there isn't enough mobile power and/or heat dissipation mechanism in the world. Forget 1000 fold even 10 fold is a huge challenge. Increasing sensitivity and computational filtering also runs into a brick wall called the ambient noise floor and the noise floor isn't moving. This leaves you with roundabout and ineffective means like going to very low frequency and throwing resolution and accuracy out the window, or using passive devices and real time triangulation which is just as dubious. It is like finding non-optical ways to replace eye sight. Whether is a blind man's stick, a guide dog or some kind of sonar based gadget, they don't work very well and will never work as well as vision.

LowObservable wrote:

"but you can't tell me that something as small as the AIM-132 on the newly designed LO pylons will turn the F-35 into a huge radar target."

Ah. So the LockMart folks who say "if you see external stores it's not stealthy" are full of Mbongo?

It's call MARKETING. Just like Eurofighter when they say "Nothing Comes Close" when in fact their have been operational jets that exceed the capabilities of a Eurofighter for 2 decades. This is not a new revelation unless you are unfamiliar with the history of combat aircraft and marketing.

Quote:

The point is that the internal weapons are lock on after launch (LOAL) only, which is more difficult. Hence the AIM-9 bays on the F-22, expensively installed to permit LOBL.

More difficult how exactly? AAMs have done that for decades as well. Nothing new here either.

Quote:

DA: The load-outs you see reflect two facts: the air threat in these theaters is small, and it's expensive lugging AAMs around for no reason.

LOL the air threat here consist of hundreds of advanced fighters all under different leadership with various different agendas and at least three of those nations have penetrated Iraqi airspace in the past. One of them does so repeatedly. The air threat in this region is quite substantial and diverse.

What it reflects is that most combat jets don't go flying around bristling with AAMs and 2 to 4 AAMs would adequately cover 90% of the core missions. It means yet another unfounded criticism of the F-35 should never be mentioned by posters on this site who have been told this or looked into it themselves.

-DA

Newbie Joined: Jul 06, 2008 Posts: 1 Status: Offline

Enjoying the post. Lots of bright people here. Although, hard to believe that someone actually said evolution is a scientific fact. Never has been proven and never will be, only a foolish theory. A forum like this with so many engineers, that should be a given. DNA is a digital code, just like the software code for the F35 and the F22, except way more complicated. Software problems with the F22 put the program over budget again a few years ago and cost the AF a couple billion. No evolution helping there, just messed up information needing correction from an intelligent external source to fix the problem. So the obvious question that everyone should ask is not where did man come from, but where did the information for man (and everything else) come from? F35 is superior to the EF until the EF can overcome stealth, newer technology, Moore's law, etc.

Tuff

Alright, people, this is not the forum to argue these things but, to those of you who doubt that evolution is scientific fact, please read Richard Dawkins, specifically "The God Delusion." Last thing I'll say on this very off-topic subject.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

Tuffster wrote:

Enjoying the post. Lots of bright people here. Although, hard to believe that someone actually said evolution is a scientific fact. Never has been proven and never will be, only a foolish theory. A forum like this with so many engineers, that should be a given. DNA is a digital code, just like the software code for the F35 and the F22, except way more complicated. Software problems with the F22 put the program over budget again a few years ago and cost the AF a couple billion. No evolution helping there, just messed up information needing correction from an intelligent external source to fix the problem. So the obvious question that everyone should ask is not where did man come from, but where did the information for man (and everything else) come from? F35 is superior to the EF until the EF can overcome stealth, newer technology, Moore's law, etc.

Tuff

Neither can intelligent design be proven, then. Except that evolution at least has non-subjective evidence. I would really recommend Dennett's "Darwin's dangerous idea" on the matter. He answers the exact criticism you put forth, but he does it in a way which is less condescending to his dissent and quite affirming that evolution is not something that negates the "value" of life, but actually something reaffirming it once you understand it. Religion has its place, certainly, but it should deal exclusively with issues that are inherently metaphysical and beyond science. Evolution and the origin of species (maybe not life, but that's a different issue), however, are beyond reasonable doubt (once you have read that book) a clear, scientific matter. Nobody argues that thunder is a cause of thor's hammer or that the sun rotates around earth anymore. And can you REALLY prove that thor isn't just fooling us all?

Unless you find ignorance a bliss, PLEASE read Dennett's book.

No disrespect intended. I respect all religions, but it annoys me when religion attempts to answer scientific issues. Once it does that, it is by definition no longer religion NOR science.

Any further responses should probably be PM's of in an off-topic forum.

On Topic

dwightlooi wrote:

Going from an F-16 or a Typhoon to an F-35 makes a 180km fighter radar is roughly good for ~22.5 km, a 400km heavy SAM radar is now good for ~50km and a 500km AWACs is now good for ~62.5km. This punches all kinds of holes in the integrated air defense system and renders nearly airtight, interlocking defense grid so full of holes its like a going from a Patriot battery to couple of dudes with MANPADs.

Adding to what DL said, this reduction in effectiveness of the big powerful radars also effects the smaller less powerful radars in missiles. If a R-77 could see an F-16 at 20km, it would need to be under 5km to lock on to an F-35. That would dramatically decrease the kill probability of the weapon and make it much more vulnerable to countermeasures. My numbers are theory but the point is the same. VLO aircraft complicate every aspect link in the kill chain.

I don't see how there is any question about the F-35 compared to a Typhoon. Cheaper and superior in every way. However, looking just at the thread title of F-35 vs EF FOR THE UK. I can see the logic of having both. The EF gives Europe valuable experience building modern jets, jobs and an export product. The F-35 gives the UK interoperability with the worlds premier coalition partner and an affordable, carrier capable operational stealth fighter that can penetrate the toughest defense. It's the best of both worlds.

-DA

Quote:

Adding to what DL said, this reduction in effectiveness of the big powerful radars also effects the smaller less powerful radars in missiles.

Not only that, but as you increase gain or power, not only do you increase the signal return, you also raise the noise floor of the signal. This would have the effect of adding clutter. So if you increase gain by 3dBi, not only have you doubled the power but you have also doubled the amount of noise your signal processor has to deal with.

Quote:

The EF gives Europe valuable experience building modern jets, jobs and an export product......... It's the best of both worlds.

Is it really? At what cost? The UK MOD is being put under severe budgetary pressure trying to pay for operations in Afghanistan, two aircraft carriers, the JSF and the money pit also known as the Eurofighter. The opening post says it all. For 68 Million pounds they got an aircraft that is not even fully developed. The Tranche III planes are going to cost so much that they have to mothball the Tranche I and II planes. So for the cost of 232 very expensive Typhoons that get less than half of those operationally and an MOD woefully short of other needed equipment.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 vs. EF for the UK