Forum: F-35 Lightning II

sewerrat wrote:

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.

Su-27 series never used Tumansky engines...

F-16.net Sponsor

IN a WEIRD roundabout kind of way APA can help Oz get the F-35As rather than more SuperDupers....

Up in the air: risky business DAVID ELLERY 11 Feb, 2012

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/lo ... torypage=0

"There are growing fears within Defence that 2012 could go down in history as the year the Federal Government lost the plot on the future air protection of Australia. Current and former senior RAAF personnel worry Defence Minister Stephen Smith is dangerously close to ordering an additional 24 Super Hornets at the cost of tearing up the 2009 Defence White Paper commitment for about 100 fifth-generation stealth fighters.

The brass, both old and new, fear the success of the first Super Hornet purchase makes a second buy politically appealing - even though the less capable Boeing F/A 18s cost more than their far stealthier Lockheed Martin F-35 counterparts. ''Mr Smith is known as a ditherer,'' one retired RAAF officer said. ''If he went out and bought (more) Super Hornets it would show he could make a decision.''

The trouble is, according to industry sources and Defence, while the Super Hornet is a good plane it is not ''an acceptable F-35 substitute''. ''The Super Hornet (which carries its weapon load under the wings and not internally like the JSF) only has low observability if it is not armed and dangerous,'' one aerospace industry marketer said.

''What is it going to do - scare you to death?'' A Defence spokesman was more tactful. ''A comparison of the flyaway cost of the 14 JSFs and the (24) F/A 18s is not feasible as one (the JSF) is a fifth generation fighter and the other (the Super Hornet) is a 4.5 generation fighter. The Super Hornet does not have the same level of capability as a fifth generation stealth aircraft.'' Even the JSF's most entrenched critics - the folks from Air Power Australia - concede the F-35 is a better air superiority fighter than the Super Hornet. A controversial simulation described by a joint APA-RepSim delegation to a high level parliamentary defence committee on Tuesday asserted a hypothetical 2018 clash between 240 Super Hornets and 240 PRC Sukhoi SU35s over Taiwan would result in all the American planes being splashed by the mainland Chinese. In contrast, given the same scenario, 30 of the JSFs would live to fight another day...."

A lot more at the URL page...

Basically, APA wants the F-111 back AND the F-22. That's their dream force structure regardless of the fact that

a) They aren't getting the F-22 due to specific US legislation.

b) Those F-111s were old and required over 100 hours of maintenance per flight hour. Even if they weren't retired, the amount of work needed to turn those F-111s into viable Mach 3 LO super-interceptors that could defend Australia for decades to come and be equipped with top of the line avionics would ensure that the land of Oz would be able to afford a whopping 4-ship fleet of them.

tacf-x wrote:

Basically, APA wants the F-111 back AND the F-22. That's their dream force structure regardless of the fact that

a) They aren't getting the F-22 due to specific US legislation.

b) Those F-111s were old and required over 100 hours of maintenance per flight hour. Even if they weren't retired, the amount of work needed to turn those F-111s into viable Mach 3 LO super-interceptors that could defend Australia for decades to come and be equipped with top of the line avionics would ensure that the land of Oz would be able to afford a whopping 4-ship fleet of them.

Exactly. APA are contributing exactly NOTHING to the debate in Australia. They don't like the F-16, F/A-18 (of any variant) JSF, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, F-15 or even the SU-35, PAK-FA or J-20 as far as Australia is concerned because in their opinion all of these planes provide less or equivalent capability only to that which our "neighbours" are introducing and don't provide the "clear strategic" advantage, that for some reason we appear to need,

They refuse to accept that the F-22 is unavailable despite production ending and the legislation that effectively prevents it being exported still being in place.

They refuse to accept the F-111 is gone despite all the airframes being buried and all the supprt facilities gone.

In short they refuse to accept reality and the longer these oxygen thieves are given media attention the more they'll continue to muddy the waters with this sort of nonsense.

They should be ignored. Completely.

tacf-x wrote:

Basically, APA wants the F-111 back AND the F-22. That's their dream force structure regardless of the fact that

a) They aren't getting the F-22 due to specific US legislation.

b) Those F-111s were old and required over 100 hours of maintenance per flight hour. Even if they weren't retired, the amount of work needed to turn those F-111s into viable Mach 3 LO super-interceptors that could defend Australia for decades to come and be equipped with top of the line avionics would ensure that the land of Oz would be able to afford a whopping 4-ship fleet of them.

There might be another reason -

Expect KK is out there with a spade right now - lets hope they buried them deep enough Laughing

from http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/ipswich/raaf-base-amberley-f-111-fighter-jets-end-up-on-swanbank-landfill-site-near-ipswich/story-fn8m0yo2-1226204896564

flighthawk128 wrote:

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.

The only way a Flanker is outmaneuvering an AMRAAM, with a fair degree of certainty, is if the missile wasn't fired within its NEZ.

[quote="wrightwing"]

flighthawk128 wrote:

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.

I just have to say....It is amazing how people come up with crazy tactical "facts" when they are neither a)pilots or b)the engineers that work on this stuff. It is just common sense ....do you really think the U.S. would field a missle that you are saying can be BFM'ed so easily? What crack are you smoking? Do you hear yourself? You are as bad as these simulation people. Under the assumption that everything works as advertised, F-35 1 for 1 exchange with SU-35's??? YOU CANNOT SHOOT WHAT YOU CANNOT SEE!!!! good god, a 4 year old can figure this out.

Do you realize how fast missles go at terminal guidance? you are not gonna see sh*t if you are on the recieving end. the wire from your brain to your hands is not fast enough....come on people.

Agreed. Mach 4.5 plus the rate of closure plus the fact that the AMRAAM is coming downhill from a lofted trajectory all equates to a very high Pk.

An idea of what it looks like....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2oj8aaXoNY

Quote:

Some of the most vehement critics of Australia’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program had their day in the sun on Tuesday afternoon when they testified before a high level parliamentary defence committee.

How did this even happen?

delvo wrote:

Quote:

Some of the most vehement critics of Australia’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program had their day in the sun on Tuesday afternoon when they testified before a high level parliamentary defence committee.

How did this even happen?

As an Australia citizen, we have the right to testify to our Senate Committees and give our opinion. You just have to register as a witness and show up.

These guys haven't done anything extraordinary and this isn't the first time they've done it, nor will it be the last I expect.

However as to how they could possibly have the time for this sort of nonsense, well I guess when you call yourself a "discerning entrepreneur" but in fact have run your own business into the ground and alienated yourself from every major player in the local industry by publicly slagging them AND their customers off for more than 12 years, you have a bit of time on your hands...

Quote:

AMRAAM would build a lot of momentum as it travels, making it harder to turn.

Momentum is linear. Aerodynamic forces grow with the square of the speed. Aero always wins, and faster is better for maneuverability.

For 3 years, ATK has been working on the next generation AMRAAM motor. From the 2009 PR:

Quote:

Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK) has been awarded a research and development contract for the Counter Air / Future Naval Capabilities (CA/FNC) program to develop technologies that can be incorporated into next generation air-to-air missile systems. The nearly $10-million contract was issued by the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, California. ATK will work in concert with NAWCWD to identify specific propulsion technologies to develop for integration into future missile systems. The work is expected to be completed by June 2013.

The scope of the CA/FNC program is to develop technologies that will extend missile range, decrease time-to-target, improve end-game maneuverability, and improve the rocket motor's response to insensitive munitions (IM) stimuli. These improvements are oriented towards the 7-inch diameter Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) that is currently in use by the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and many allied nations, but will be applicable to other air-to-air missile systems.

There are four main areas that ATK will be concentrating their development efforts on which include: high burn rate propellants for improved kinematics; improving case stiffness for reduced weight and agility; low erosion nozzles for improved performance; and multi-pulse propulsion for end-game maneuverability.

http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=25280&item=58059

flighthawk128 wrote:

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

I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. Don't tell me it's from a youtube video by PowerRussia.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

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