Forum: General F-35 Forum

@arkadyrenko...... You are looking at the F-35 as if the glass is half empty. What you need to look at how each model of the F-35 benifited from the requirements of its sister aircraft. Here is a list of the top of my head:

F-16.net Sponsor

Eh, the reason I'm unhappy is that it is behind schedule, which would be more acceptable were the USAF / USN not almost totally dependent on the JSF for future airpower. I also don't think that the JSF is the right plane for the future, but we can't blame the original designers for not knowing that, as the future requirements have changed quite dramatically in the past 20 years.

More concretely, the question of a benefit for the JSF has to balance the good, such as lower weight, with the bad, added development time and cost. In my opinion, given the unfortunate levels of the bad, which once again would be less unfortunate 'if' the JSF were not the sole fighter program for the US today, currently outweigh the good. But we'll see. Also, some of your benefits were already going to happen for any fighter development program which began in the mid 90s.

The true effect of the F-35B, and the overall joint nature of the program, on the JSF probably won't be know for either: another 10 - 15 years, when the tell all books come out; or in a few years after an acrimonious end to the JSF program. Hopefully the latter won't happen, so we won't know the answer for a while.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Eh, the reason I'm unhappy is that it is behind schedule, which would be more acceptable were the USAF / USN not almost totally dependent on the JSF for future airpower. I also don't think that the JSF is the right plane for the future, but we can't blame the original designers for not knowing that, as the future requirements have changed quite dramatically in the past 20 years.

As far as I can tell your entire strategic rationale to question the F-35's capabilities is premised on one weapon system, the DF-31 and its predecessors. Its a system that is relevant in only one scenario which is almost implausible to occur (the Taiwan straits battle.)And even in that scenario the DF-31's actual utility is completely open to question. I suspect the US has spent an order of magnitude more on defenses for IRBMs type system, than the chinese have invested in the DF-31.

Instead the F-35 offers great maneuverability, sensor integration, signature reduction, weapons carriage and a range that is only slightly better than the aircraft it will replace. It likely outclasses its competing aircraft (PAK-FA and J-20), yet somehow its incapable? Its basically going to be the swiss army knife of tactical air power. Asking for it to have a longer blade, means that you're going to pay more or lose some other aspect of its utility... which might be more relevant for its future operations than some scenario that will never happen.

As someone who has studied strategic studies and weapons procurement for some time, you'll never get the "silver bullet capability." There will always be shortcomings on one way or another. Braying for something that needs to be better in X scenario (usually the most implausible one), then claiming the program is a failure, actually shows poor strategic foresight.

Damn it, hb, you realize this is a forum and you're speaking too much sense. Using plain truth is speaking over the heads of the average Joe. Smile

Last edited by arkadyrenko on May 04, 2012 - 07:15 PM; edited 1 time in total

hb - Aside from China, is there any reason to build the F-35? The number of countries with rapidly advancing A2AD networks is extremely low, and we can thank stealth for raising the bar to prohibitive levels. The F-35's primary justification is the Chinese military threat, so it doesn't quite work to state that the US won't fight China and at the same time claim that the US will need an entire fleet of stealth fighters. Without China, you're forced to resort to discussing the North Korean or Russian threat. As I can see, the fact is that the Chinese pose the only superpower military threat to the US. Hence, the top line weapon systems ought to be built to address that threat.

If you claim that the Chinese military conflict is implausible, and that the US shouldn't seek the "silver bullet capability" against it, than I can't see many reasons to purchase the F-35. I happen to think that the Chinese scenario is the most important for the US, and as such the F-35 is a justified expenditure. I just also happen to think that its a shame that the F-35 program may sucked up the funds that may have gone into developing a longer range fighter. A fighter that would be more appropriate for the Pacific theater of operations. And yes, I know that the perfect fighter doesn't exist. Such a long range fighter would probably be worse at A2A compared to the F-35.

Right now, I would be willing to sacrifice some of the F-35's capabilities to get more range. The most influential think tank at the DoD, CSBA, has been adamant that the US needs to get longer range tactical air. I find their articles to be very persuasive. Adding range to tactical air allows for a more flexible basing operation and reduces the possibility for a 'single point of failure' in the current operational plans. E.g. If the J-20 works, in that it can get within 50 miles of a refueling operation without being detected and launch an AAM, US TACAIR will need to find a solution fast or see most of its force reduced to base defense.

About the DF-31, if that weapon system works, the Carriers may be out of business for the first half of a war against China. We still haven't considered the cost benefit ratio of the DF-31's existence. Absent the DF-31, there are still a solid number of ways for the Chinese to keep the US out. (it is not just the DF-31...) First, the Chinese have invested a large amount of money into their submarine fleet. That is matched with investments into anti-ship missiles and redesigning the H-6 bombers. At the same time, the number of nuclear powered attack subs is still low and the Chinese don't have an aircraft to match the Tu-22. In either case, the Chinese will be able to put out a substantial amount of firepower several hundred miles away from the mainland.

Which leads to the second problem facing carrier battle groups. As far as I know, there is no way to reload VLS tubes at sea. That means that the carrier group cannot penetrate deep enough into the hostile A2AD network for fear of magazine depletion before the battle group can withdraw from the conflict zone. Given that the Chinese threats are multiplying within that A2AD network, this will put a strain on the ability of the carrier groups to maintain station in a hostile environment.

Combined, those two tendencies will compel the US carrier commander to operate at fairly extended distances. You can see this in the Navy's headlong rush to get the Northrup Grumman drone onto the flight decks. This is also manifest, to a lesser degree, in the Navy's F/A-XX request for proposals. And we still haven't discussed operations in the South China Sea, for example. Or trying to operate large tankers out of Okinawa when they cannot be placed into a hardened hanger and face a continual threat from Chinese missiles. I have read somewhere, and have completely forgotten the source, that some people were looking at hardened hangers for either bombers or support aircraft at Guam. If that was true, I can't think of a better argument for longer range fighters.

And, if there is one thing that is a constant over the past 10 years, it is this. Chinese military development has consistently outpaced US expectations.

Note: I edited the last sentence as I completely messed up what I intended to say.

The Navy is soliciting information, not proposals.

Quote:

Right now, I would be willing to sacrifice some of the F-35's capabilities to get more range. The most influential think tank at the DoD, CSBA, has been adamant that the US needs to get longer range tactical air. I find their articles to be very persuasive. Adding range to tactical air allows for a more flexible basing operation and reduces the possibility for a 'single point of failure' in the current operational plans.

Totally with you on this point here about needing to get a longer jab in our fighting mix.
I do however prefer to imagine that a 'fast pointy drone' (as opposed to slow long range drone) is a better solution to get that than a larger version of the manned fighter if you need to push tactical air much beyond the range of the F-35. And here I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the means to achieve a longer range tactical air is going to be an airframe that carries perhaps 30% more fuel than the F-35 and that is internally because the F-35 could also sling tanks under the wings.

@archeman..... There is a practical limit of how much fuel you can stuff into a fighter and still call it a fighter. I think with the F-35 they pretty much took that to the practical limit.

I know a lot of people are all excited about drones but they shouldn't be because drones are easy targets because they don't take evasive maneuvers when they are shot at. By the time you stuff all the technology into a drone so that it can make evasive maneuvers you might as well just go back to pilots and flight crew.

As far as the F-35 and F-22 go there has been rumors floating around about them using stealth drop tanks.

Quote:

drones are easy targets because they don't take evasive maneuvers when they are shot at

You should have said "Today's Drones".
Don't worry I don't have stars in my eyes for drones.

But....
'teaching' drones to take one of 10-15 pre-programmed evasive maneuvers based on specific sensor input, then plot way-points away from the threat and bug-out for home isn't too far around the corner.
And that can all be done w/out any human commands.
Now programming it to turn about and switch from defensive to offensive is a much bigger fish to fry.
But there are better locations on this site to discus this topic.

archeman wrote:

Quote:

drones are easy targets because they don't take evasive maneuvers when they are shot at

You should have said "Today's Drones".
Don't worry I don't have stars in my eyes for drones.

But....
'teaching' drones to take one of 10-15 pre-programmed evasive maneuvers based on specific sensor input, then plot way-points away from the threat and bug-out for home isn't too far around the corner.
And that can all be done w/out any human commands.
Now programming it to turn about and switch from defensive to offensive is a much bigger fish to fry.
But there are better locations on this site to discus this topic.

The only two problems to which drones are a solution is sending sorry letters to the pilots' next of kin, and the g-tolerance limits of the human body. And on the second point they're only a partial solution. A small missile powered by a short-ranged rocket motor, designed to be fired once and therefore needing no appreciable structural over-design for fatigue life, will ALWAYS be able to outmaneuver your long-ranged, capable drone. The drone's maneuverability will only matter in WVR maneuvers against human pilots, a scenario which modern combat has rendered rare. Today's drones achieve their long range by being very, very slow, and not maneuvering much. A faster drone will not be long-ranged. Moreover, as the fuel fraction goes up to increase range, the "pilot fraction" goes down; the longer the range of the plane, the less the drone advantage in terms of performance gets. About the only range advantage you retain in a penetration-capable drone strike package is your crew can go home and sleep comfortably in real beds while the second shift comes on duty happy and refreshed, and can order a pizza in for lunch while they're transiting over the open ocean. For that reason, drone strategic bombers may also make some sense. But even there, it's harder to defend against an ICBM warhead. Drone fighters have made less and less sense since stealth came into being. I still think they will be built, but only so we can send them on suicide missions, and they will be less capable than the human-piloted planes except in very rare dogfights.

Think about the engineering of it. If you build a fighter body with say a 20g structure (weights proportionately more, plus expensive), Mach 2+ engines (thirsty and expensive), advanced stealth (expensive), and the advanced sensor suite you'd need to pick from your 10-15 evasion options (very expensive), you've spent more than an F-35. Regardless of whether it has a pilot or not. Build that in a drone, and we will have a tiny fleet of them, they will not be disposable despite the lack of pilots, and they will have a poor range. Make them big enough to get back the range in fuel fraction, and you lose the g rating (or increase the structure and engine costs further). Drones would probably make pretty good point-defense interceptors, where you can sacrifice range for thrust:weight ratio. (Actually, I think a VLS point defense drone for the Navy may make some sense. But they'd detest that because it would threaten the role of big-deck carriers. And basically, even that's little more than a SAM that can hit two or three targets before it's expended.) And they would make good bombers and theater spy "satellites." But not long-ranged fighters. Your "fast pointy drone" would be either fast, or longer-ranged than the F-35, but not both.

arkadyrenko wrote:

spazinsbad - sorry, I did not fully explain myself there. What I intended to say is that the F-35 has the most powerful engine in the history of fighters, yet its CONOPs do not anticipate sustained or significant supersonic flight.

As far as I can understand the CONOPs, it will cruise subsonic at 25k ft. Above the range of MANPADs and light flak and relying on its stealth to help avoid long range SAMs. The supersonic flight will help with A2A and evading long range missiles / dashing out of trouble. This is a perfectly acceptable CONOPs, though I may have totally unsupported qualms about it, but the general idea makes plenty of sense. Why, then, does the F-35 need so much thrust? I suspect it has to do with the combination of the short body caused by the Marine variant and the internal weapon bays.

That is merely one flight profile. The circumstances will determine what profiles/speeds are utilized. It certainly doesn't represent that maximum numbers for either set of metrics.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Eh, the reason I'm unhappy is that it is behind schedule, which would be more acceptable were the USAF / USN not almost totally dependent on the JSF for future airpower. I also don't think that the JSF is the right plane for the future, but we can't blame the original designers for not knowing that, as the future requirements have changed quite dramatically in the past 20 years.

What requirements have dramatically changed, resulting in your view about whether it's the right plane?

arkadyrenko wrote:

hb - Aside from China, is there any reason to build the F-35? The number of countries with rapidly advancing A2AD networks is extremely low, and we can thank stealth for raising the bar to prohibitive levels. The F-35's primary justification is the Chinese military threat, so it doesn't quite work to state that the US won't fight China and at the same time claim that the US will need an entire fleet of stealth fighters. Without China, you're forced to resort to discussing the North Korean or Russian threat. As I can see, the fact is that the Chinese pose the only superpower military threat to the US. Hence, the top line weapon systems ought to be built to address that threat.

Every nation in the middle east is buying new fighters/SAMs. N. Korea and Russia could very well be a threat at some point. During the life time of the F-35, there's no telling what sort of geo-political situations might arise.
As for the DF-31, the Chinese have yet to demonstrate a tactical capability with it. It's one thing to engage stationary, undefended target, with known coordinates. It's quite another to engage a foe, that is moving, has ABMs, and the precise location is unknown.

Quote:

If you claim that the Chinese military conflict is implausible, and that the US shouldn't seek the "silver bullet capability" against it, than I can't see many reasons to purchase the F-35. I happen to think that the Chinese scenario is the most important for the US, and as such the F-35 is a justified expenditure. I just also happen to think that its a shame that the F-35 program may sucked up the funds that may have gone into developing a longer range fighter. A fighter that would be more appropriate for the Pacific theater of operations. And yes, I know that the perfect fighter doesn't exist. Such a long range fighter would probably be worse at A2A compared to the F-35.

How much do you suppose that it would cost to operate an adequate number of stealty fighters for "implausible" scenarios, as well as large numbers of conventional aircraft for bombing caves?

Quote:

Right now, I would be willing to sacrifice some of the F-35's capabilities to get more range. The most influential think tank at the DoD, CSBA, has been adamant that the US needs to get longer range tactical air. I find their articles to be very persuasive. Adding range to tactical air allows for a more flexible basing operation and reduces the possibility for a 'single point of failure' in the current operational plans. E.g. If the J-20 works, in that it can get within 50 miles of a refueling operation without being detected and launch an AAM, US TACAIR will need to find a solution fast or see most of its force reduced to base defense.

Our TACAIR doesn't need significantly more range. We need more survivable, stealthy long range bombers, to augment the 20 B-2s. You're focusing on unrefueled ranges, to get your radii of action. Just because an aircraft may only be able to fly 600-700nm, before flying back to base unrefueled, doesn't mean that that's the radius of operation. The F-35 may take off and fly 600-700nm, before getting a top off on ingress, and another on egress. This significantly increased its reach. Now factor in that the JSOW-ER and JASSM-ER, give the F-35 another 300-600+ nm reach beyond that. That gives a pretty significant reach, well beyond the DF-31, etc... The J-20 isn't going to get within 50 miles of a tanker undetected. Tankers don't operate that far forward, and the CAP fighters would've engaged prior to it getting close enough to be a threat.

Quote:

Which leads to the second problem facing carrier battle groups. As far as I know, there is no way to reload VLS tubes at sea. That means that the carrier group cannot penetrate deep enough into the hostile A2AD network for fear of magazine depletion before the battle group can withdraw from the conflict zone. Given that the Chinese threats are multiplying within that A2AD network, this will put a strain on the ability of the carrier groups to maintain station in a hostile environment.

They can be reloaded at sea, it's just that the rate of reload isn't very fast. In a major situation, you could probably expect 3 CSGs with at least 10 DDG/CGs, and SSN/SSGNs. This amount to more than 300 ESSMs, 250-300+ TLAMs(plus another 300+ on the subs), 600-700+ SM2/6, and roughly 30-40 SM3s. In addition to that the carriers also carry ESSMs/RAMs/CIWS, and 180-200+ aircraft. Now factor in USAF assets that would likely be involved as well, and I think things might not look as dire as you're portraying them.

Quote:

And, if there is one thing that is a constant over the past 10 years, it is this. Chinese military development has consistently outpaced that of the US.

Which Chinese system/capability has exceeded the US counterpart?

First, about your last comment. That was yet another mistake on my part. What I meant to say was that the Chinese have consistently outpaced US expectations of their military development. Sorry about that.
Quote: "the modernization and advancement of Chinese military weapons systems over the past decade have consistently developed faster than both U.S. officials and analysts outside of government expected"
Source: introduction in http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2012 ... il2012.pdf

Topic 2: proliferation of double digit SAMs.

In a world where China does not drive US military development, but we look at other countries buying their own SAM networks, the proposed USAF force structure would be this:

200 - 400 F-22 air superiority fighters
150 - 300 FB-22 stealthy strike bombers
~1500 4th gen+ non-stealthy fighters.

The F-35 program would be replaced with a non-stealthy 4th gen+ fighter program, thus saving all the of the developmental cost and difficultly associated with creating a stealthy fighter. The money saved from removing stealth from the F-35 can be rolled into creating the FB-22 or into recapitalizing the airborne ISR capabilities.

This force structure contains enough firepower to punch the door down on any small to medium sized country.

But, because the USAF believes that the US's biggest opponents will have a fully integrated, 21st century, air defense network involving all sorts of equipment, tricks, etc. , the F-35 is justified. Only China has the military budget to achieve such a defense network.

Topic 3: A2AD and China

Starting from TACAIR not needing enough range. The distance from Guam to Taiwan is on the order of 1200nm. To conduct fighter operations at that range the F-35 may need to tank 2 times per leg. Given that tanking assets are limited and that the US won't want to throw away stealthy drop tanks, this will place a serious limitation on the F-35's sortie generation rate. As a matter of fact, it may not even be possible to conduct strike fighter operations from Guam. The US will need to base out of Okinawa, easy range of far more Chinese airfields and subject to Japanese approval, or out of the Philippines, which has its own set of difficulties. Per your argument, the USAF will have to resort to using the NGB to conduct long range operations against China, and by the stats I've posted above, using the F-35 will be difficult. This is not a promising sign for the future of USAF air power.

And, USN carriers don't have organic tanking capability.

Next, how are those CAP aircraft going to find the J-20, given the fact that they'll be defending a tanker orbit 300 nm from the Chinese mainland? And, we aren't even considering the possibility that the J-20 has sufficient stealth to evade the fighter's radar, at least for reasonable distances (50+ miles). As I've mentioned above, the pace of Chinese development is consistently higher than expected, and the Chinese know the traits of US air power as well as anybody. I am positive they have given thought to the topic of destroying US tankers and airborne ISR. To use tactical fighters near China, the USAF will have to build airborne defended regions 900nm away from the base. That will be a formidable challenge and will probably adversely impact combat effectiveness.

Finally, regarding the battle groups. First, those three battle groups will presumably be operating independently, which limits the defensive capability of a single battle group. The reloading time for the VLS tubes is maybe 10 tubes per hour with calm seas. That is a rate far too low for a battle field where ballistic or cruise missile strikes can happen at any moment. Battle group tactics will reduce the danger, but I still think that the battle groups will still have to act very cautiously at the opening of a general war with China. In fact, the primary striking power for the USN will be the SSGNs, F-35C's may not contribute at all to the beginning of the war.

Topic 4: DF-21, the ASBM

Yes, the missile is unproven. But, at least by wikipedia's article, its range is probably going to be 1000nm (longer than the JSF + baseline JASSM!) and the DoD believes that it has reached IOC. The technology for maneuverable ballistic missiles already exists and has been proven. The technology for radar guided ballistic missiles already exists and has been proven. The question is can the Chinese get the CEP down to a small enough level, remember that they can use flechettes instead of a solid warhead to hit a bigger target area, and can the Chinese build the ISR network to get targeting data. Construction of the ISR network is ongoing and there is absolutely no reason to think the Chinese cannot do it. Remember, they probably already have most of the US research on this topic.

Conclusion: the China scenario provides the strongest argument for the F-35, but at the same time it shows a potential flaw of the F-35. I think its a bit of a wash for the USAF. The USN is a different matter altogether.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Topic 2: proliferation of double digit SAMs.

In a world where China does not drive US military development, but we look at other countries buying their own SAM networks, the proposed USAF force structure would be this:

200 - 400 F-22 air superiority fighters
150 - 300 FB-22 stealthy strike bombers
~1500 4th gen+ non-stealthy fighters.

The F-35 program would be replaced with a non-stealthy 4th gen+ fighter program, thus saving all the of the developmental cost and difficultly associated with creating a stealthy fighter. The money saved from removing stealth from the F-35 can be rolled into creating the FB-22 or into recapitalizing the airborne ISR capabilities.

If there is anything I dislike more is reading people's fantasy "wishlist" of capabilities and systems. I can just imagine how hideously expensive this force would be for the limited level of capabilities it provides. The reality is that low observable isn't the cost driver for the F-35, its the avionics (sensors, sensor fusion and comms), because that's the way the US fights its wars. Those systems would be included on any potential program. Given the extreme costs of the F-22+FB-22, in addition to a legacy fighter with a major avionics upgrade, it would be significantly more expensive than the F-35 fleet that is currently being assembled.

Quote:

This force structure contains enough firepower to punch the door down on any small to medium sized country.

But, because the USAF believes that the US's biggest opponents will have a fully integrated, 21st century, air defense network involving all sorts of equipment, tricks, etc. , the F-35 is justified. Only China has the military budget to achieve such a defense network.

Yeah, you don't need a deep defence network to cause the political failure of a campaign. Serbia absorbed bombing raids for several months, and utilized their antiquated SAMs in an assymetric fashion. Had those SA-3s been SA-21s it would have been a wholly different campaign, with a much restricted target list.

The US military spent eight years trying to knock down first generation SAM sites in an improvished third world country known as vietnam. Yet they never succeeded. So somehow you suggest that they will be able to make it safe for 4th gen fighters?

And that's is a real constraint and concern for the US military, not your fanciful China vs US Battle royale discussion. Upgrading its entire force to a low observable fleet returns the military to a position where it can effectively carry out strike with relative safety.

Quote:

Topic 3: A2AD and China

Starting from TACAIR not needing enough range. The distance from Guam to Taiwan is on the order of 1200nm. To conduct fighter operations at that range the F-35 may need to tank 2 times per leg. Given that tanking assets are limited and that the US won't want to throw away stealthy drop tanks, this will place a serious limitation on the F-35's sortie generation rate. As a matter of fact, it may not even be possible to conduct strike fighter operations from Guam. The US will need to base out of Okinawa, easy range of far more Chinese airfields and subject to Japanese approval, or out of the Philippines, which has its own set of difficulties. Per your argument, the USAF will have to resort to using the NGB to conduct long range operations against China, and by the stats I've posted above, using the F-35 will be difficult. This is not a promising sign for the future of USAF air power.

If only there was an highly developed and defended base where the Americans could operate their fighters from that was closer than Guam.

Oh wait.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Wheeler: F-35s problems started in the Clinton Admin