Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Quote:

"There is no clear need for the [F/A-XX] aircraft", Gardner says. "To be worthwhile it has to be sixth-gen, which no one even knows what that means," he says.

I thought the same thing. What is a 6th Gen aircraft?? Sounds impressive though, eh?

Quote:

There are options to increase the F-35C's range, persistence and stealth, Gardner says.

That's an interesting remark, especially coming from someone so highly placed, someone actually in a position to know that.

F-16.net Sponsor

In this discussion about the story, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the Marine Corps stands the most to lose if the F-35C is cancelled for a 6th gen fighter. Hence, you should take what they say with an eye to the fact that they want to keep the Navy in the JSF program for motives outside of the benefits of the JSF to the Navy.

On the topic of a 6th gen fighter:

I would wish that one of the services would stop trying to launch 20 year acquisition programs. No acquisition program that last for 20 years will run well, and I think the F-22 and JSF have proven that in spades. If the Navy wants to launch another breakthrough design for the F/A-XX, the Pentagon should slap them down and make them eat the JSF. The statement "it isn't worth it if it is not 6th gen" should really mean "don't launch another 20yr acquisition program without getting massively expensive performance boost." What the Navy should do is just go for 5th gen or 5th gen +, and leave the 6th gen for a future upgrade.

I read on the AEI's blog an interesting way of looking at the F-22. The author suggested that the F-22 is like the F-101 Voodoo, a plane ahead of its time and tremendously expensive. However, the F-101 lead to the more advanced F-4. Perhaps the Navy can take a hint from that story and try to get a more organic short term upgrade, instead of quixotically pursuing another brilliant, and ruinously expensive, leap forward.

link: http://blog.american.com/2012/05/histor ... air-force/

Back to the Navy and the JSF:

With regards to range extension, I would be suspicious about that claim right now, if only because Lockheed would have certainly brought out a more concrete range expansion program by now, given the numerous think tank complaints about the JSF's lack of range. We know that weight margins are thin, so there is a question about how they would restructure the JSF to get extra range out of it. This leads to an interesting question about how do you upgrade a stealth fighter. No one has done it before, at least externally. The only way right now is to redo the interior of the airframe, avionics upgrades and maybe engine swaps. Adding conformal tanks becomes much more difficult when there are signature issues to handle.

Remember, the Navy really wants to get two engined aircraft. That, and their desire for 'F-22 like' kinematic performance will probably eliminate the JSF airframe from any F/A-XX competition.

Finally

If the USAF is going to be spending its time bombing tanks in Yugoslavia and fighting ancient and poorly flown MIG-29s, there's no reason to buy the F-35. I'm sorry for those arguing about better loss ratios, more advanced tech, 5000lb bunker busters. In the wars the US has fought for the past 20 years, the US has gotten by without the JSF. The argument for the JSF is that the US won't be fighting wars like that in the future.

wrightwing wrote:

We're still talking about engaging 12 Migs right? If the estimates are correct, about the F-35 being 4 to 8x more effective, then they'd enjoy a better exchange ratio, than the F-16s.

Really?! What's its secret? Do missiles magically appear in its weapons bays when it runs out?

Sorry, but you failed this one.

Six F-16's combined could support 24 AMRAAM's among them on top of their A/G weaponry and fuel. The maximum number of AMRAAM missiles two F-35's can carry with an external weapon and fuel load is six + 2 short-ranged AIM-9's. That means these fighters would have to score a hundred percent kill ratio to avoid having to enter visual range to use their AIM-9's. I won't argue that F-35's probably are more effective with missiles than F-16's but you've got many fewer to work with.

At best, these two fighters could only hope to match the combined effectiveness of six F-16's. That 4-8x effectiveness crap is fiction.

Arkadyrenko stated it very well that the US isn't likely to encounter threats that DEMAND a fifth generation fighter for decades to come. And in the meantime, reducing your fighter force by half is idiotic. The only time when you benefit from having a technologically-advanced fighter is if you're fighting enemies with similar capabilities. The main reason that drones are gaining favor is that they're cheap and effective against enemies who don't have a world-class air defense system.

I wonder what 'near BVR range' means:

AIM-9X http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/aim-9x/

"...AIM-9X is a launch-and-leave air combat missile that uses passive infrared (IR) energy for acquisition and tracking, which can be employed in near beyond visual range and within visual range arenas. Complemented with the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), the warfighter has unparalleled offensive firepower compared with any other weapon system in the world.

It has extremely high off-boresight capability, which gives a pilot first-shot, first-kill dominance. It provides greatly enhanced acquisition ranges in blue sky and clutter, and IR countermeasures deliver the capacity to resist ever-changing threats. The AIM-9X has a highly agile airframe and its fifth-generation seeker and thrust vectoring control provide unprecedented performance...."

Quote:

The main reason that drones are gaining favor is that they're cheap

BshipAcourt,
Drones are 'relatively' cheap in terms of unit flyaway costs. The data networks and support infrastructure that allows them to perform as well as they do is a significant cost that is difficult to measure since there is a certain amount of overlap in resoruce usage. They still have a lot of systems development that hasn't yet been widely invested in such as a truely automated return home/landing which currently requires remote/local pilot handover and is often a source of mishaps. Drones will need threat sensor systems with automatic evasive response programming. This will make them relatively more survivable and expand the roles they can participate in, but it isn't going to make them cheaper.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

We're still talking about engaging 12 Migs right? If the estimates are correct, about the F-35 being 4 to 8x more effective, then they'd enjoy a better exchange ratio, than the F-16s.

Really?! What's its secret? Do missiles magically appear in its weapons bays when it runs out?

Sorry, but you failed this one.

Sorry, but it's you who failed, because you forgot to formulate the problem. You're clinging to a painfully ridiculous model of 12 MiGs vs. 2 F-35s, and the F-35s for some incredibly stupid reason have no option but to stay in the fight as targets until all sides run out of missiles. That's not the math problem anyone intelligent sets up here.

2XF-35 carries (your estimate) 6 AMRAAM and 2 AIM-9. Against 12 fully armed MiGs, at even 50% missile effectiveness, that means in the first fight, 3 MiGs go down, no F-35 even enter visual range of the MiGs. (Hello? Stealth fighter, remember? Even the unarmed, subsonic, radarless F-117s were never once shot down by any enemy aircraft.). Only a moron would hang around like in your scenario; the stealth fighters would turn away from the remaining MiGs, complete their A2G mission, and go back home. The remaining MiGs would just flit around wasting fuel hunting targets that aren't there. They'd survive, but they'd be useless in the fight. (Or if they're stupid enough to follow, and lucky/unlucky enough to guess the direction to follow, they fly head-on into AIM-9X fire, and then you have even fewer MiGs. I'll assume intelligent MiG pilots.) The next day, it's 9 fully-armed MiGs vs. 2 fully armed F-35s. Next day 6 vs. 2, then 3 vs. 2; if they even fly that last mission there are no more left afterwards. Or even more realistically, it's 12 MiGs vs. 2 F-35, 3 MiGs go down to F-35 fire, 3 more go down from SAM batteries they didn't see while they were dodging shots from (and losing energy from the dodging) F-35s they couldn't see. And the F-35s for their part aren't really vulnerable to the opposing SAM batteries either (if anything, the F-35 is the only aircraft with 360 degree awareness of ground targets, and they can hunt the SAM batteries even while maneuvering around the MiGs.) So both F-35s go home. Then the next day there are even fewer enemy SAM batteries because of the F-35s' previous day's work, just as may friendly SAM batteries, and the other 6 MiGs defect to some neutral country nearby, or die the same way their buddies did the day before.

Quote:

Arkadyrenko stated it very well that the US isn't likely to encounter threats that DEMAND a fifth generation fighter for decades to come. And in the meantime, reducing your fighter force by half is idiotic.

It's been a central tenet of military strategy for thousands of years that an army travels on its stomach. Half the fighter force numerically (if equally, or more, effective) is cheaper and more secure to sustain. Every extra pilot, airframe, and ground crew you put in harm's way is that much more of a vulnerable logistics umbilical you have to dangle all the way back to the homeland. Double the planes means twice the fuel deliveries, twice the food deliveries, twice the spare parts deliveries, all of which are vulnerable targets, and all of which (if lost) can mean even fewer planes in the air despite having twice as many on the ground. To not cut your force size (when you can without losing effectiveness) is what's blatantly idiotic.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

Have you never wondered why the US has kept its antiquated fleet of B-52's when it's got the B-1b and B-2 at its disposal? It's because the B-52 fleet is cheaper to operate and have a higher reliability than the other options. And because most operations don't require the survival features of the B-1b and B-2, these bombers become too expensive to operate. The same thing applies to the F-35.

And yet you miss the single most important feature that gave the B-52 its longevity: we already had them. Not one new B-52 has been purchased since long before even the first B-1B came off the assembly line. And you'll notice as well that what we have bought are B-1Bs and B-2s. So if you're serious about your example, you're proposing that we stick exclusively with existing-build F-15s, -16s, and -18s, that we buy absolutely nothing new for another 50 years, that we limit the existing airframes to 2.3 g maneuvers and subsonic flight so as to give them the needed airframe and engine life to survive that span, AND that we also don't do what the US actually has done bomber-wise since the B-52, which is buy a bunch of newer aircraft as well.

The Hornets are already falling apart, we either need a mass of SuperBugs or to get F-35Cs to the fleet as quickly as possible.

I don't like the F-35, but it's the only fifth-generation option for the Navy and Marines. The USAF could conceivably restart Raptor production and procure Silent Eagles/F-16Vs, but the other services don't have these options. We need to get the thing working properly and in Fleet service ASAP. It doesn't need to 'ship' with the full software package, just deliver the airframes with basic software and update it from there.

The USAF could hardly restart Raptor production at the moment, with the shellacking its taking in the press, it look like the media has found their new "darling". The USN could just as easily procure more F/A-18E/F's, in fact, far more easily than the USAF could ever procure Silent Eagle's or F-16V's as there is already flexibility within the current MYP plan with Boeing. The fact of the matter is, as much as some may or may not like the aircraft, the F-35 is happening, folks. The USAF divested its EW assets in the form of the EF-111 predicated on the move to an all stealth fleet, they ceased procurement of F-15E' s and F-16's in anticipation of a move to an all stealth fleet-now hardly seems like the time to throw away all that investment. The Navy has given no indication that they intend to not honor their F-35 commitments-do you think they would fund the R&D of an aircraft that they never intend to purchase?

Imagine what people who were used to the F-4, and thought "that" was what a fighter was supposed to be, when they first saw the F-16. All these years later, here we are on F-16.net, not F-4Z+ MLU Super Non plus Ultra Phantom IV .net Very Happy

The truth of the matter is that procurement of a new aircraft is measured in decades anymore, and if the Navy wants to get serious about a Super Hornet replacement that can nest above where the F-35C is slotted capability-wise, they would need to start talking about that now. That they want an aircraft that can lift more, further, and faster than the F-35C should come as no surprise, its what they did progressing from Legacy to Super Hornets.

HV

southernphantom wrote:

The Hornets are already falling apart, we either need a mass of SuperBugs .... We need to get the thing working properly and in Fleet service ASAP. It doesn't need to 'ship' with the full software package, just deliver the airframes with basic software and update it from there.

Agreed, but.... the C will only replace 180 USN Hornets, no SBs and the Corp is only receiving 80 Cs with their 340 Bs. I believe vAdm V. & co. will deliver a working F-35 (all three types) and as the LM manfacturing is polished, fewer design issues will have to be fixed. But this thread is about the XX and replacing the 288 USN Super Bugs (which the Corp doesn't fly). With the XX replacing the SB with it's longer range and heavier ordinance loads the question becomes will it be a C with longer range (larger wings (fuel) and a longer/ larger weapons bay for the 1st day attack/ intercepts and how much will hang off the wings for 2nd day, etc. Systems wise it can only be an evoloution of the C's, Sit. Aware., EW, etc. and will continue to evolve with the technologies. Two F-135s or two F-119s??, the Navy and the twin engines thing. One exciting technology is the new carbon nanotube reinforced polymer (CNRP) fairings on the F-35 wing tips that are inherently RAM and the strongest material in the airframe. Building the flight body of this material will yield an incredibly light and strong aircraft. With these basics, the XX is well on it's way to competing from the flight deck with the ultimate Raptor. Idea

arkadyrenko wrote:

In this discussion about the story, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the Marine Corps stands the most to lose if the F-35C is cancelled for a 6th gen fighter. Hence, you should take what they say with an eye to the fact that they want to keep the Navy in the JSF program for motives outside of the benefits of the JSF to the Navy.

The Navy isn't going to wait until 2030 to acquire new aircraft, which is why the F-35C is in no danger. It'd be 2050 before they had a full order of new aircraft, and Super Hornets aren't going to operate that long.

Quote:

On the topic of a 6th gen fighter:

I would wish that one of the services would stop trying to launch 20 year acquisition programs. No acquisition program that last for 20 years will run well, and I think the F-22 and JSF have proven that in spades. If the Navy wants to launch another breakthrough design for the F/A-XX, the Pentagon should slap them down and make them eat the JSF. The statement "it isn't worth it if it is not 6th gen" should really mean "don't launch another 20yr acquisition program without getting massively expensive performance boost." What the Navy should do is just go for 5th gen or 5th gen +, and leave the 6th gen for a future upgrade.

The 20yr acquisition program isn't a number picked arbitrarily. That's how long it takes to finalize requirements, designs, develop and test prototypes, compete with other designs, and then test/develop the final product. How long did the Typhoon, Rafale take to develop from the Tornado/M2000? How long did the Russians take with the PAK FA from the Flanker?

Quote:

Back to the Navy and the JSF:

With regards to range extension, I would be suspicious about that claim right now, if only because Lockheed would have certainly brought out a more concrete range expansion program by now, given the numerous think tank complaints about the JSF's lack of range. We know that weight margins are thin, so there is a question about how they would restructure the JSF to get extra range out of it. This leads to an interesting question about how do you upgrade a stealth fighter. No one has done it before, at least externally. The only way right now is to redo the interior of the airframe, avionics upgrades and maybe engine swaps. Adding conformal tanks becomes much more difficult when there are signature issues to handle.

The aircraft was designed with spiral development from the outset. That's why it reaches IOC at Block 3, and not Block 8. As avionic technology improves(i.e. miniaturization), this can free up internal volume. New engine technology is also in the upgrade plane, for power, range, and durability enhancements. You can safely assume that low observable conformal tanks/pods are part of the upgrade plan too. As for stealth upgrades, you can expect that coatings/paints/materials will improve over time, that could be added.

Quote:

Finally

If the USAF is going to be spending its time bombing tanks in Yugoslavia and fighting ancient and poorly flown MIG-29s, there's no reason to buy the F-35. I'm sorry for those arguing about better loss ratios, more advanced tech, 5000lb bunker busters. In the wars the US has fought for the past 20 years, the US has gotten by without the JSF. The argument for the JSF is that the US won't be fighting wars like that in the future.

You buy weapons for the next war, not the last war. We don't know who we'll have to fight, or how sophisticated the threats we'll be. You can't base your procurements on best case scenarios. It's too late to get what you need, if you find out you were overly optimistic.

battleshipagincourt wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

We're still talking about engaging 12 Migs right? If the estimates are correct, about the F-35 being 4 to 8x more effective, then they'd enjoy a better exchange ratio, than the F-16s.

Really?! What's its secret? Do missiles magically appear in its weapons bays when it runs out?

Sorry, but you failed this one.

Six F-16's combined could support 24 AMRAAM's among them on top of their A/G weaponry and fuel. The maximum number of AMRAAM missiles two F-35's can carry with an external weapon and fuel load is six + 2 short-ranged AIM-9's. That means these fighters would have to score a hundred percent kill ratio to avoid having to enter visual range to use their AIM-9's. I won't argue that F-35's probably are more effective with missiles than F-16's but you've got many fewer to work with.

At best, these two fighters could only hope to match the combined effectiveness of six F-16's. That 4-8x effectiveness crap is fiction.

Your assumption that the Migs will stick around as they start falling out of the sky, is where you fail. The Migs won't know how many foes they're up against, fighting F-35s, whereas the F-16s will be a known quantity. Additionally, the F-16s will likely have to take evasive action before they can fire off all of their missiles, reducing the number of missiles fired, in a single salvo. It's not just a matter of 2 sides flying towards one another, and whomever fires the most missiles wins. It's who scores the most kills, while evading the foe's missiles. By the time the F-35 reaches IOC, the Block II AIM-9X will be in service, and that has a BVR range too, assuming the F-35s were carrying external weapons. Now factor in the electronic attack capabilities, that the F-35(and not the F-16) has, which can also be used to minimize the Mig's effectiveness. We haven't even gone into the combat persistence advantages, etc...

popcorn wrote:

The longer-term solution would be the Hypervelocity Penetrating Weapon, a 2000-lb weapon designed,to,rival the current 5000-lb Bunker buster in performance. You can fit a pair of these in the internal,weapons bay so stealth and aircraft performance are not compromised..

They are working on that already. They next logical step is, when they start building bunkers that need more than that, you will have to go bigger.

Even a 20% loss rate per mission is not sustainable over any lengthy period of time.. you would run out f airplanes very quickly.

Last edited by popcorn on May 09, 2012 - 01:21 AM; edited 1 time in total

Double post

I start getting worried if losses go over 3%...

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Marines view F/A-XX as threat to F-35