Forum: F-35 Lightning II

double post

F-16.net Sponsor

Just set those up with a remote FCS and fly 'em like a Reaper, at least until the AQ-47C shows up.

sewerrat wrote:

Why use Phantoms when we have a small fleet of F-117s gathering dust? There's quite number of people who are only just a few years out of practice flying, and maintaining them. They're easily 100x more survivable than any 3rd or 4th gen fighter. Spare parts in spades (relatively speaking), and probably have yet to give up the ghost to dry rot and corrosion. Configured for a one way ticket to some nameless nuclear facilities in some nameless middle eastern country, that'd be quite some haymaker to land on someone. About.... 45 stealthy kamikazees, 5000lbs of explosives. Good night! This is all pie in the sky though.

Why send them on a one way trip? Have them deliver their payloads, and then fly back to base.

wrightwing wrote:

sewerrat wrote:

Why use Phantoms when we have a small fleet of F-117s gathering dust? There's quite number of people who are only just a few years out of practice flying, and maintaining them. They're easily 100x more survivable than any 3rd or 4th gen fighter. Spare parts in spades (relatively speaking), and probably have yet to give up the ghost to dry rot and corrosion. Configured for a one way ticket to some nameless nuclear facilities in some nameless middle eastern country, that'd be quite some haymaker to land on someone. About.... 45 stealthy kamikazees, 5000lbs of explosives. Good night! This is all pie in the sky though.

Why send them on a one way trip? Have them deliver their payloads, and then fly back to base.

One way trips do a couple of things: 1) double the range 2) Greatly reduce the footprint of maintainers and other ground based soldiers 3) with an "expendable" platform you can fly entirely different routes and operate from entirely different bases 4) fly into otherwise "keep out" airspace

There are some other things I can rattle off, but you get the idea..........

sewerrat wrote:

One way trips do a couple of things: 1) double the range 2) Greatly reduce the footprint of maintainers and other ground based soldiers 3) with an "expendable" platform you can fly entirely different routes and operate from entirely different bases 4) fly into otherwise "keep out" airspace

There are some other things I can rattle off, but you get the idea..........

One way trips also mean that you can only use them once though.

wrightwing wrote:

sewerrat wrote:

One way trips do a couple of things: 1) double the range 2) Greatly reduce the footprint of maintainers and other ground based soldiers 3) with an "expendable" platform you can fly entirely different routes and operate from entirely different bases 4) fly into otherwise "keep out" airspace

There are some other things I can rattle off, but you get the idea..........

One way trips also mean that you can only use them once though.

As opposed to losing a couple of B-2s in a non-nuclear mission (where each loss it 5% of the fleet, initially, and exponentially climing with each loss). I can think of at least one one rogue nation where it'd be worth it, and then some.

sewerrat wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

sewerrat wrote:

One way trips do a couple of things: 1) double the range 2) Greatly reduce the footprint of maintainers and other ground based soldiers 3) with an "expendable" platform you can fly entirely different routes and operate from entirely different bases 4) fly into otherwise "keep out" airspace

There are some other things I can rattle off, but you get the idea..........

One way trips also mean that you can only use them once though.

As opposed to losing a couple of B-2s in a non-nuclear mission (where each loss it 5% of the fleet, initially, and exponentially climing with each loss). I can think of at least one one rogue nation where it'd be worth it, and then some.

You're missing my point. Why not use the F-117 drones over and over, rather than on one way trips. There's only 50 of them, so it'd be a better resource, if they weren't all destroyed, while accomplishing their missions. If we need a weapon with a longer range, conventionally armed ballistic missiles, and hypersonic air launched weapons would be far more capable, than any aircraft.

arkadyrenko wrote:

river_otter:

1) The F-35B spotted a missile launch from several hundred kilometers, not a cruise missile. The Sizzler missile, for example, runs sub-sonic until it gets within horizon distance of the target, then it shifts to supersonic burst. The sub-sonic form implies a lower IR signature, reducing the DAS effective rage. Though the current version of the Sizzler doesn't have stealth shaping, to the best of my knowledge, that upgrade is inevitable. Those two facts mean that the sensor range of the F-35A/B/C against stealthy cruise missiles will certainly face some challenges.

To a fast air asset, the subsonic cruise limitation of the Sizzler also means there's more time to find it and shoot it down before it even gets into supersonic dash range. And the idea that "stealth shaping" is an inevitable "upgrade" to an existing platform is simply laughable. How many supersonic stealth anythings are there? One in service (F-22) and one more in development (F-35), with a couple of possible if doubtful stealth projects that are more likely no more than limited signature reduction compared to their respective nation's legacy aircraft (PAK-FA and J-XX). If you're saying that some day, several decades hence, some other nation may develop a brand new stealthy supersonic missile, I agree. But if you're saying that it is a simple upgrade to any existing missile, or that we'll see it within 20 years or less, that's a joke. Nobody except the US has any experience at all with supersonic stealth. A mature, effective weapon using it won't suddenly pop up in a vacuum.

Quote:

2) I never, in any of my comments, assumed that the LHA would be operating alone. The problem here is will the F-35B enable over the horizon engagements? Because, as I have stated elsewhere, the newest version of anti-ship missiles give the defenders precious little time to react.

Of all the assets an LHA can carry, only the F-35B and maybe, just maybe, the V-22 offer anything like an OTH capability. The F-35B has well over double the combat radius of the V-22, so the standoff capability for any mission whatsoever is only guaranteed with the F-35B. The beauty of a network-centric fighter like the F-35 is that it is not only multi-mission in theory (you can hang different things on it to give it the ability to perform different missions at different times), but it can be multi-mission in practice. An F-35B going ashore to provide CAS for a flight of V-22s disembarking troops and arms still has its full sensor suite and can watch for incoming missiles on its way there and back, as well as while loitering over the contested beachhead. It requires no real input from the pilot, and can automatically share what it senses to other assets in a position to respond in defense of the ship. Especially when the alternative is you simply don't have that sensor capability, it seems a no-brainer.

Quote:

As to the comment about the Falklands proving the need to upgrade to F-35Bs, how about the Falklands proving the need to use CVNs as opposed to using independent F-35Bs / LHA combos combat ops against a capable opponent? Remember, a re-run of the Falklands includes a more capable Argentine air force (unless you want it to be a walkover, as any modern fighter group against un-upgraded 70s tech will win), which changes the whole threat problem significantly.

First, unlike the British in the Falklands, we have CVNs. And we would certainly send CVNs to do that job if it was us rather than the British, and we were doing it today. However, remember that the British did win, with skijump carriers and Harriers. And the F-35B of today (well, in fairness, of the next few years) outclasses all potential opponents by far more than the Harrier outclassed the French fighters in Argentine use back then. So second, as you contend, if the Harriers were very marginal in the fighter role even back then (a point I agree with you on), then the shift from Harriers to F-35B doesn't merely keep the power ratio for carriers vs. a more modernized Argentina the same as it was back then. It opens the gap between STOVL carriers vs. Argentina much wider in favor of a carriers victory. But back to the first point, it's a bad analogy; we would send CVNs to mop up Argentina if we had to, not take our second-rate carriers and send to do a CVN's job there out of nostalgia, just because that was Britain's only choice decades ago. LHA carriers would be sent for much smaller jobs, like taking a single lightly defended island on the periphery of the chain, while the CVN was busy wiping out the Argentine air force and shore defenses elsewhere.

Quote:

I doubt that the USN could have conducted airstrikes in Vietnam without the CVN. And I doubt that the USN could have posed a legitimate threat against the soviet union without the CVN. The US choose to engage in the low threat conflicts, it wasn't forced to by geo-political necessity. That, again, adds to the argument that the F-35B / LHA combo is a luxury, not a necessity.

When we fight the larger wars, the smaller battles in those wars are not luxuries. And as al Qaeda proved, sometimes an important foe may be a small one, but still not a foe of choice rather than necessity. The luxury is not having a capability to respond to smaller conflicts, but putting all our assets towards the giant battles of WWIII while neglecting cheap solutions to tiny problems.

Quote:

To the kicker: if we all agree that the F-35B is only useful, by itself, against weak opponents.

That's true only as strictly written, the F-35B, like the F-35A and F-35C and F-22, and F-15, and PAK-FA, and ... are only useful by themselves against weak opponents. All air assets require support to be effective for more than a single, short-ranged mission, and different missions have to be flown to defeat an actual enemy; this isn't an episode of Tale Spin where everyone has nothing but air assets. But the F-35B, supported by an LHA, is more capable on short missions against land or air targets than anything we've ever had before. The fact that F-35Cs supported by a CVN would be more effective in a higher-intensity scenario is a worthless point if all you're fighting is a low-intensity scenario and/or the CVN is tied up somewhere else. Or if the F-35Bs would be more than effective enough. If our choice is skip the air cover for the Marines, or skip a mission that's deemed necessary due to lack of air cover, or support it well enough with F-35Bs, that's a no-brainer for option 3.

Quote:

And we all agree that the F-35B will be operating in conjunction with CVN for the heavy hitting missions, then why does the F-35B need to be a stealthy strike fighter? Why continue to spend so much money on the aircraft?

Because short-ranged SAMs are cheap and readily available, and modern SAMs are not exactly impossible for a third world country to get any more either. Plus the stealth of the F-35B was a freebie. The USAF and USN needed stealthy strike fighters, so a stealth airframe suitable for the F-35B was already going to be developed whether it was going to be used for the F-35B or not.

Quote:

If the DoD wanted to cut a single variant and reduce the costs by the greatest amount, it would be the F-35B. The F-35B is probably more complex than the other two versions (the lift fan), it has unique elements (the lift fan), and it will be purchased in the smallest amount. The costs of maintaining the stealthy STOVL ability will be concentrated solely in one branch of the military. And, an analysis of alternatives to the F-35B for a low intensity environment could reveal some cheaper airplanes to achieve that low intensity ability. Perhaps a gunship version of the V-22.

Flat-out wrong. The F-35B has a deceptively high per-airframe "cost" because it's the least numerous version. The development costs were going to be "spread" over a smaller number of airframes. And because the airframe was going to be developed whether or not it was going to be used for the F-35B, the only actual cost attributable to the F-35B was development of the STOVL systems. Those systems are categorically NOT very complex (developing them has been somewhat complex but that would have been required for any new-build STOVL aircraft, stealthy or not.) On a per-plane build cost basis, the F-35C is far and away the most expensive variant, and it's also the most complex variant. The lift fan is a relatively simple set of rotating fans, like there are already quite a few of inside the engine, along with a drive shaft and a clutch. Not expensive or complex. The roll posts are engine bleed air systems, like there are already quite a few of taking air off the engine to run different aircraft systems. The 3-bearing nozzle design was bought practically off the shelf from Yakolev. Beyond that there are a few doors, of which there are already many on the aircraft covering the landing gear, weapons bays, maintenance ports, and boarding ladder. The F-35C in contrast has heavier structure throughout, beefed-up landing gear and stronger components where the landing gear mounts to the plane, a catapult link on the front gear, also has doors to cover the tailhook just like the B has doors to cover the 3-bearing swivel nozzle, the tailhook itself plus its mounting to the aircraft, a marinized version of the F-135 engine, both extended wingtips, ailerons not present on the other versions, control software and hardware to operate those ailerons (including control wiring and electrical wiring, and at least four more electrohydrostatic actuators), different control laws software to account for the bigger wings and use of ailerons, recalculation of the plane's stealth shaping to account for the bigger wings, folding gear for the wingtips, and (though inconsequentially cheap) an extra fuel tank behind the pilot that is not found on either other version. And that's just the parts that I know of. No question at all, the CATOBAR gear of the F-35C is more complex and more expensive by far than the STOVL systems of the F-35B. It's a very transparent accounting trick (read: lie) to consider the F-35B more expensive just because the development costs are artificially distributed across fewer of them. The cost to develop the F-35B was what it was. Whether we actually only needed 1 or 1000 of the B model doesn't change what it cost to design and troubleshoot the model. Development money already spent, the only thing that matters now is what each costs to build and maintain. And the per-plane build cost is much cheaper for the B than the C.

Lastly, a tilt-rotor design was considered for the LHX but was taken out of contention very early on, for very good reasons. The wings are behind the huge proprotors and the belly is too low to mount missiles on without making a fragile, spindly landing gear modification, the design trades robustness for the ability to flee danger faster than a conventional helicopter (great for a transport but not so much for a gunship), and it lacks maneuverability compared to a conventional helicopter. It also has a 510 mile shorter combat radius than an F-35B (meaning your fragile LHA has to be up to 510 miles closer to land to support its troops) and carries 640 lbs. less payload than an F-35B. And the F-35B is almost done with development whereas the AHV-22 hasn't even been proposed in an seriousness, not even counting the reasons above why it is a bad gunship platform to start with. A V-22 gunship is a non-starter. If an F-35B can't do it, a V-22 can't do it by 510 country miles.

Quote:

And, we've all implicitly agreed that the F-35B is pretty low down there in terms of importance. It is best used in conflicts where the overall risk is low, which is synonymous with conflicts where the interests of the United States face a lower degree of immediate risk.

Wrong again. The F-35B is for use in conflicts where the risks range from low to high. It is, however, uniquely suited to handle the really low-intensity conflicts that can be handled much more cheaply than with a CVBG. And low-intensity is not remotely the same thing as low risk.

Quote:

But, in a sense this argument is moot, because there is still the problem of sunk costs, etc. What I can say is this: in retrospect, adding the F-35B to the JSF program was a mistake.

As pointed out above, we either needed them (the Marines feel we do) and had to spend those sunk costs, or we didn't (your contention, though based on a great deal of misinformation about what it actually cost to develop). As a further piece of misinformation, which has been corrected many times on this forum by others and is also readily available through sources too numerous to list, the F-35B was not "added" to the JSF program. A replacement for the Harrier was the genesis of the program. The USAF's "low" end of their hi-low mix with the F-22 was later added to the Marines' Harrier replacement, and the USN's third-time's-a-charm replacement for the A-6 was tacked on even later than that.

Quote:

Finally, here's my gauntlet for the F-35B fans, what capabilities does the F-35B and the LHA offer in a conflict against China?

The LHA/F-35B combination specifically probably wouldn't actually see combat against China (even in the unlikely case we ever do go to war against them, an eventuality I consider ridiculous in the foreseeable future), but its existence causes the Chinese to expend money and people they can ill afford to waste, defending their prodigious coastline. It's like chess, putting their assets in check. We can't actually use such a weak combination against a defended coastline, but they can't afford to stop defending every inch of their coastline lest we gain the ability to invade it. Much like the Marines in general, their primary value againt a near-peer enemy is that as long as we have the capability to mount an amphibious assault, no enemy can take for granted that we won't actually do it. It is cheaper for us to field a few mobile invasion systems that can hit targets of opportunity than it is for them to defend every inch of their entire fixed, predictable coastline strongly enough to repel our LHAs.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

JSF a "'Scandal And A Tragedy" ~ Sen John McCain