Forum: F-35 Lightning II

munny wrote:

Their simulation showed f-35's jinking 90 degrees as they got closer to the flankers. Why were they doing that? The F-35 has a 60 degree arc in front (according to apa) where its vlo. Why would it give up its position by jinking and showing off its high RCS side aspect so close to the enemy. Their computers which calculate their best approach based on RCS would have been saying "That's it, I quit, you're a dumb@rse!" to the pilots.

It seems to me that the flankers in their simulation were being flown by professionals, and the F-35's were being flown by monkeys who had monkeys for trainers.

This is actually a perfectly valid tactic- if the enemy is using doppler radars. A 90-degree beam turn is going to make the enemy radar think your aircraft is a stationary ground target because of doppler-shift and cause targeting problems for it. However, the simulation doesn't seem to take AESA into account, nor the F-35's RCS peculiarities. This tactic would be great if it were F-15Cs facing off against Su-27s or something, but I believe its effectiveness is limited or even negative with LO aircraft against AESA radars.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

HB pencil
Nor can I really believe your assertion that both the F-35 and the Su-35 would detect each other at the same time.

I did not say that - if you read it you would realise I was asking others with more expertise than me to comment also and tried to sumarise the assumptions APA based there scenario on.
I said the scenario obviously assumed that at 20nm[37km] the SU35 will also be able to see the F35.
The F35 will obviously get first look and anybody with a brain accepts that. The APA scenario also assumes despite having first look the F35 will not be able to effectively engage them until they are within about 20nm[37km] with the AIM120D. It assumes at a range of about 37km the Flankers will be able to also see the F35. That is entirely different to your twisting of what I said.
What APA is saying in effect is the AIM120D is the limitation if launched from a slower and lower flying F35 outside a 37km radius. Its chances of a kill will be negligible and also "close in" the SU35 will have the advantage.

To me that is the guts of there scenario and has always been the guts of APA's argument. I have not looked at there site for possibly 12 months but I doubt they have changed. They also push the advantage the Flankers will have using multiple types of seekers on there missiles and the fact Russian doctrine is to fire multiple missiles at the one time with different seekers. [There has to be advantages in that for sure.]

"Munny" above does make a good point about countering the SU35 in the APA scenario.
He also has obviously read and understood APA's line of argument.
I agree with "Munny" overall - the problem with APA is they tend to base everything around one scenario they prefer ignoring the fact the enemy will also continually adjust his tactics etc. to take advantage of his strengths.
Exactly what most uncritical F35 fans do also that knock the APA line.
They harp on the F35s strengths and try to ignore its weaknesses. Exactly what APA does when it tries to prove its point.
While they both have a certain degree of truth on there side they both are blind in other areas.
In reality nobody can assume the "fight" if it comes will be on there predetermined terms and suit there particular aircraft.

I agree with "munny" if the F35 picks up the SU35 coming from about 100km away it is simply a matter of getting as much altitude and speed as it can and launch just before the SU35 has a lock on.
Not being an expert what I don't know is will it matter much if the F35 is say 10,000ft lower. Will that greatly affect the performance of the AIM120D.
Maybe a Pilot who understands these things will know if it is not all classified.

I note your comments about costing also. Do you believe the fly away cost of $65m for a fully equipped F35 as continually given by LM is a reliable figure to work off. Cheaper than older 4+ gen Fighters at $75m+ fly away. Other sources including branches of US Defense put it at about $90-120m in to-days dollars.

True there has never been anything like 240 jets on each side involved in anything since Korea
but this was a scenario prepared trying to predict a possible future scenario in this region based on current developments.
Aircraft of that number are possible in the Asian region by say 2025. Maybe not all SU35s but there equivalent or better. No doubt some will be upgraded Su30 etc.

If we define the term "supercruise" as M 1.5 on dry thrust, then there's no way in heck an Su-35S can match that.

I've never found any evidence of the Su-35S supercruising or its engines even being compatible with sustaining supersonic flight on dry thrust. Hence, the whole APA analysis is once again complete bollocks.

rkap wrote:

From looking at the APA stuff it appears they make the following main assumptions.
If the scenario is completely wrong it will be in those initial assumptions. Everything depends on the data put in mainly.
1] The SU35 has an altitude advantage and all operators will obviously use that to there advantage.

The Su-35 doesn't enjoy any practical altitude advantage over the F-35. The F-35 has a combat ceiling over 50k feet, so it's fallacious to assume that every shot against a Flanker will be from beneath.

Quote:

2] The SU 35 has the advantage of supercruise - limited but it has it.

This is an unproven advantage. How many missiles can a Flanker carry supersonically, and using dry thrust? There's no proof that the F-35 won't be able to fly at M1-M1.3+ on dry thrust, negating the Flanker's supposed speed advantage.

Quote:

3] The SU35 has a considerable agility and speed advantage at altitude because of its 3D Vectoring and Wing and airframe design.

The Flanker pilot won't necessarily know that he needs to use speed/agility. The assumption is that the Flanker pilot will be aware of the F-35 at roughly the same time that the F-35 is aware of the Flanker.

Quote:

4] The Su35 or his wingman or other SU35's will have picked up the F35 on radar before or at about the same time as the F35 can effectively launch.
In his mind obviously that effectively negates most of the stealth advantage of the F35. Pointless being able to see the SU35 if your kill probability is so low all you will do is waste one of your precious missiles and let him know you are there. [Sukoi claims the IrbisE can pick up a .01sq.metre target at up to 90km - [a baseball]- what the F35 is we don't know for certain?
Some say "golf ball front on". What can the SU do at 30nm [50km].

The F-35's frontal RCS is .001m^2 or better. This means that the Flanker will likely not see the F-35 on radar till ~20-25nm, assuming that the F-35 pilot flies right into the Flanker's detection range, instead of using stealth and situational awareness advantages to avoid detection, whilst engaging. The F-35 on the other hand can spot the Flanker on radar at 100+nm, giving a HUGE advantage. The AIM-120D's effective range is considerably further than the Flanker's detection range, allowing the F-35 to fire first.

Quote:

APA obviously assumes the SU35 will know the F35 is there one way or another before or at about the time the F35 can effectively launch at 20nm. The scenario was not based on 1 on 1. Flying as a group where they have a much better chance of picking up the less stealthy sides of the F35 etc. is obviously part of this scenario.

A networked group of F-35s will have far greater situational awareness than will a group of Flankers.

Quote:

The key to the whole thing is the effective range of the AIM120D against a SU35 operating in a way that best suits its strengths.

The Su-35 doesn't have any strengths, that allow it to ignore an AIM-120D.
In a co-altitude scenario, there's no reason that an AIM-120D couldn't be fired with a high pK at 150-200% of the Flanker's detection range for the F-35.

Quote:

If the maximum effective kill range of the AIM120D when launched from below at an aircraft with the agility and speed of a SU35 at altitude is only about 20nm and with a very low kill at that range then it makes sense.
Not the 200-1 or whatever it was but it certainly is in there with a good chance.
He also obviously believes the SU35 will eat the F35 close in if missiles from both sides fail. [Back to the Vietnam scenario.]

This is a huge, and misinformed assumption.

Quote:

There are many possibles in the next 5 years - better US missiles - same for the SU35 and also a better ASEA Radar and Engine from the Pak Fa program.
Best to leave them out.
2020 when both could or should be available in reasonable numbers.

What is the truth?

There may be a squadron of PAK FA's at IOC by 2020. It's pretty far fetched to assume that there'll be hundreds in service by then. Obviously both side's equipment will improve in the next 5-10yrs, so that's not really germaine.

Once the AMRAAM from the F-35 is fired, there is not much the Flanker can do to defeat it. APA claims that the AMRAAMs will fail because some MiG-29 pilots got lucky back in Operation: Allied Force in Kosovo and therefore AMRAAMs aren't reliable.

The thing is that the Su-35S lacks any sort of uber-advanced ECM suite that can reliably defend against the AMRAAM and chaff is virtually obsolete anyway.

With no altitude advantage against the F-35 once the Lightning II shoots first and the AMRAAM arcs upward to gain Potential energy then once the endgame commences all the AMRAAM has to do is dive into the Flankers to gain KE to outmaneuver them. With horrible ECM what is a flanker to do? Break Right? Please. Rolling Eyes

Don't forget that the -D has a GPS assisted INS and a two-way datalink. Even if the -D thinks of going for chaff or jamming, ANY F-35 in the area can quickly get it back on target.

rkap wrote:

The F35 will obviously get first look and anybody with a brain accepts that. The APA scenario also assumes despite having first look the F35 will not be able to effectively engage them until they are within about 20nm[37km] with the AIM120D.

An AIM-120A would be able to easily engage from that distance, especially in a closing shot. An AIM-120D has a considerably longer range than the A model, so that's not even close to representing reality.

Quote:

It assumes at a range of about 37km the Flankers will be able to also see the F35. That is entirely different to your twisting of what I said.
What APA is saying in effect is the AIM120D is the limitation if launched from a slower and lower flying F35 outside a 37km radius. Its chances of a kill will be negligible and also "close in" the SU35 will have the advantage.

IF the F-35 is flying lower and slower. The F-35 may be flying higher, and faster though. As for "close in" I'll take spherical engagement+agile, over high off off-boresite+more agile. Not only should the F-35 enjoy a larger launch envelope, but the Flanker's weapons will have a harder time maintaining lock.

Quote:

I agree with "munny" if the F35 picks up the SU35 coming from about 100km away it is simply a matter of getting as much altitude and speed as it can and launch just before the SU35 has a lock on.

Try 100+nm.

Quote:

Not being an expert what I don't know is will it matter much if the F35 is say 10,000ft lower. Will that greatly affect the performance of the AIM120D.
Maybe a Pilot who understands these things will know if it is not all classified.

It's simply not realistic to assume that an F-35 would enter an engagement with a Flanker, 10k feet lower. The F-35 would know about the Flanker first, and ensure that's not the case, or avoid the Flanker all together.

Quote:

It is true there has never been anything like 240 jets on each side involved in anything since Korea
but this was a scenario prepared trying to predict a possible future scenario in this region based on current developments.
Aircraft of that number are possible in the Asian region by say 2025. Maybe not all SU35s but there equivalent or better. No doubt some will be upgraded Su30 etc.

That's not a realistic number of aircraft, in a single sortie now, or in 2025(or ever).

SpudmanWP wrote:

Don't forget that the -D has a GPS assisted INS and a two-way datalink. Even if the -D thinks of going for chaff or jamming, ANY F-35 in the area can quickly get it back on target.

Not to mention home on jam. All of these techniques give the -120D a variety of methods to engage a target.

wrightwing wrote:

rkap wrote:

The F35 will obviously get first look and anybody with a brain accepts that. The APA scenario also assumes despite having first look the F35 will not be able to effectively engage them until they are within about 20nm[37km] with the AIM120D.

An AIM-120A would be able to easily engage from that distance, especially in a closing shot. An AIM-120D has a considerably longer range than the A model, so that's not even close to representing reality.

Quote:

It assumes at a range of about 37km the Flankers will be able to also see the F35. That is entirely different to your twisting of what I said.
What APA is saying in effect is the AIM120D is the limitation if launched from a slower and lower flying F35 outside a 37km radius. Its chances of a kill will be negligible and also "close in" the SU35 will have the advantage.

IF the F-35 is flying lower and slower. The F-35 may be flying higher, and faster though. As for "close in" I'll take spherical engagement+agile, over high off off-boresite+more agile. Not only should the F-35 enjoy a larger launch envelope, but the Flanker's weapons will have a harder time maintaining lock.

Quote:

I agree with "munny" if the F35 picks up the SU35 coming from about 100km away it is simply a matter of getting as much altitude and speed as it can and launch just before the SU35 has a lock on.

Try 100+nm.

Quote:

Not being an expert what I don't know is will it matter much if the F35 is say 10,000ft lower. Will that greatly affect the performance of the AIM120D.
Maybe a Pilot who understands these things will know if it is not all classified.

It's simply not realistic to assume that an F-35 would enter an engagement with a Flanker, 10k feet lower. The F-35 would know about the Flanker first, and ensure that's not the case, or avoid the Flanker all together.

Quote:

It is true there has never been anything like 240 jets on each side involved in anything since Korea
but this was a scenario prepared trying to predict a possible future scenario in this region based on current developments.
Aircraft of that number are possible in the Asian region by say 2025. Maybe not all SU35s but there equivalent or better. No doubt some will be upgraded Su30 etc.

That's not a realistic number of aircraft, in a single sortie now, or in 2025(or ever).

I know you purposely left this out of your argument, but those Tumansky powerplants will need to be swapped out and rebuilt every 2 or 3 flights where she goes supersonic. Even if there are significant numbers of those heaps, I don't know that the ground crews will be able to "hot lap" those things in and out fast enough to keep pace with a more reliable F-35. Numbers are fine, so long as they're able to get aloft, otherwise their fodder, or lawn ornaments.

Perhaps the AMRAAMs have a longer range than a Flanker can detect, but ever see a Russian pilot bada** his way from a missile (look on Youtube). As well, the AMRAAM would build a lot of momentum as it travels, making it harder to turn. Any Flanker can easily outmaneuver a Raptor IMO (debatable), so an AMRAAM should be a piece of cake. On top of that

Quote:

APA claims that the AMRAAMs will fail because some MiG-29 pilots got lucky back in Operation: Allied Force in Kosovo and therefore AMRAAMs aren't reliable.

Honestly??? The MiG is even worse than a Flanker.

Quote:

chaff is virtually obsolete anyway.

Low-Tech (maneuvering while chaffing and flares) beats High-Tech (depending on scenario. In this case, yes)
Anyways, if the Flanker outmaneuvers the AMRAAMs and supercruises like crazy, the F-35 is dead meat.

Scotsman: "All data assumes equipment on BOTH sides works AS ADVERTISED by Lock-Mart/Sukhoi"

That's not APA's game. ALL Western equipment will fail in combat as the Defense Reformers taught us while ALL Russian equipment will perform as it does in the brochure. Russian magic allows a Flanker to supercruise while carrying 14 missiles with different seekers and RTB with no tankers. If the F-35's need tankers Russian magic will allow the the Sukhois to down the tankers (if any F-35's survive to need them). None of this applies to the F-22. All the stuff on the F-22 always works, unless it doesn't (in that scenario).

tacf-x: The thing is that the Su-35S lacks any sort of uber-advanced ECM suite that can reliably defend against the AMRAAM and chaff is virtually obsolete anyway.

Kopp read open source stuff on cross eye jamming, then saw the pods on the Flanker wings. So, AMRAAM is now useless. Unless it is fired by an F-22. (See above).

southernphantom wrote:

munny wrote:

Their simulation showed f-35's jinking 90 degrees as they got closer to the flankers. Why were they doing that? The F-35 has a 60 degree arc in front (according to apa) where its vlo. Why would it give up its position by jinking and showing off its high RCS side aspect so close to the enemy. Their computers which calculate their best approach based on RCS would have been saying "That's it, I quit, you're a dumb@rse!" to the pilots.

It seems to me that the flankers in their simulation were being flown by professionals, and the F-35's were being flown by monkeys who had monkeys for trainers.

This is actually a perfectly valid tactic- if the enemy is using doppler radars. A 90-degree beam turn is going to make the enemy radar think your aircraft is a stationary ground target because of doppler-shift and cause targeting problems for it. However, the simulation doesn't seem to take AESA into account, nor the F-35's RCS peculiarities. This tactic would be great if it were F-15Cs facing off against Su-27s or something, but I believe its effectiveness is limited or even negative with LO aircraft against AESA radars.

IIRC they modified the radar's programming to counter that particular tactic.

Does anybody else remember those times when Kopp came up with this elaborate upgrade scheme to make the F-111 into a viable air superiority fighter for defending against the Su-35S's? It would have featured an AESA radar, a JHMCS, HOBS missiles, a pair of F-119 supercruising engines, leading edge RAM treatments, etc. To think Kopp wanted THIS to happen yet the F-35 is considered an expensive failure of a program that will suck Australia dry in terms of finances.

He's a loon.

"That's not APA's game. ALL Western equipment will fail in combat as the Defense Reformers taught us while ALL Russian equipment will perform as it does in the brochure..."

They're cynics and critics, not reformers.

tacf-x wrote:

Does anybody else remember those times when Kopp came up with this elaborate upgrade scheme to make the F-111 into a viable air superiority fighter for defending against the Su-35S's? It would have featured an AESA radar, a JHMCS, HOBS missiles, a pair of F-119 supercruising engines, leading edge RAM treatments, etc. To think Kopp wanted THIS to happen yet the F-35 is considered an expensive failure of a program that will suck Australia dry in terms of finances.

He's a loon.

No, a lot of that work would have been done by APA members. They're thieves who can't even figure out how to get their hands on the $.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Joint strike fighter program a 'failure' (from beloved APA)