Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

SpudmanWP wrote:

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.

Sorry if I am following a tangent here....
Isn't is also possible (and wise) to just keep 'drilling' with follow up hits rather than hope for silver bullet bunker busters? You make a hole in the ground then drop more delayed blast weapons down your previous hole until you start to see exposed rebar and other evidence that you are reaching the target. Requires revisit but the weapons are smaller and cheaper, tactics are similar.

F-16.net Sponsor

archeman wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

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.

Sorry if I am following a tangent here....
Isn't is also possible (and wise) to just keep 'drilling' with follow up hits rather than hope for silver bullet bunker busters? You make a hole in the ground then drop more delayed blast weapons down your previous hole until you start to see exposed rebar and other evidence that you are reaching the target. Requires revisit but the weapons are smaller and cheaper, tactics are similar.

Well, for one thing, an external,5000lb bomb makes a great radar reflector . And lighter is always better.

Just try and repeatably hit a one meter hole while dust and debris block your vision.

archeman wrote:

Sorry if I am following a tangent here....
Isn't is also possible (and wise) to just keep 'drilling' with follow up hits rather than hope for silver bullet bunker busters? You make a hole in the ground then drop more delayed blast weapons down your previous hole until you start to see exposed rebar and other evidence that you are reaching the target. Requires revisit but the weapons are smaller and cheaper, tactics are similar.

If you're flying in a permissive environment, that might be an option. In a non-permissive environment, you may not want to fly another pass against a target that you just bombed, and is now aware of your presence.

I'm not sure even the most accurate ordinance to date can hit inside of 1 m consistently.

'count_to_10' o ye of little faith.

First weapon designed to be dropped by gravity from a drone makes debut May 9, 2012 by Richard Clements

http://theaviationist.com/2012/05/09/fi ... kes-debut/

"...Lockheed Martin has developed a new weapon: a drop-glide bomb called Shadow Hawk.

Shadow Hawk is the first weapon designed to be dropped purely by gravity from a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).

Weighing in at 4.9kg (11lb) the bomb has a diameter of 6.9 centimeters (2.75 inches) and is guided by laser designator attached to the drone.

The weapons first launch was from a RQ-7 Shadow at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah on Mar. 28, and the munition, released from an altitude of 5,100 feet, impacted its intended target only 8 inches from the laser spot center at a speed of 460 feet per second....

spazsinbad wrote:

'count_to_10' o ye of little faith.

First weapon designed to be dropped by gravity from a drone makes debut May 9, 2012 by Richard Clements

http://theaviationist.com/2012/05/09/fi ... kes-debut/

"...Lockheed Martin has developed a new weapon: a drop-glide bomb called Shadow Hawk.

Shadow Hawk is the first weapon designed to be dropped purely by gravity from a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).

Weighing in at 4.9kg (11lb) the bomb has a diameter of 6.9 centimeters (2.75 inches) and is guided by laser designator attached to the drone.

The weapons first launch was from a RQ-7 Shadow at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah on Mar. 28, and the munition, released from an altitude of 5,100 feet, impacted its intended target only 8 inches from the laser spot center at a speed of 460 feet per second....

Nice. I've forgotten what the accuracy of the SDB is, but I didn't think it was less than a meter. Eight inches is pretty impressive.

Accuracy of a LGB is a far cry from GPS based accuracy.

Not bad today though according to:

JDAM: A GPS-INS Add-on Adds Accuracy to Airstrikes Mar 12, 2012

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jda ... kes-03313/

"...The LJDAM (Laser JDAM) kit adds a DSU-40 laser guidance module to the standard JDAM INS/GPS kit. The combination improves accuracy to 1m CEP or less. It also allows the weapon to target moving objects, using GPS/INS to get the weapon into the vicinity, and laser guidance for the final strike. This combination creates a more versatile and standardized weapon set, and gives aircraft on station an option that lets them hit transient “pop up” targets of opportunity, without having to be within laser sighting range themselves. In exchange, of course, LJDAM costs more. LJDAM’s 1st combat use came in Iraq, in August 2008.

The closely related US Navy Direct Attack Moving Target Capability (DAMTC) weapon was first delivered in October 2008. It’s very similar to LJDAM, with some maneuvering enhancements, explosive materials optimized for naval use, and a few minor configuration changes...."

There are problems digging holes with JDAMs. At that point, the enemy already knows that you're overhead and plotting another strike. They can move in SAMs for an ambush or just fill the hole back up with dirt. Then there are questions about the craters refilling.

More realistically, if it can't be hit in a single pass by a couple of 5000lb or equivalent bombs, it is probably out of reach of tactical fighters.

Returning to the thread's original topic:
wrightwing - I think that the military as a whole should reject the 20 year acquisition cycle. Speed the programs up, make them less ambitious, so they don't become monsters that can't get an IOC date, even after 10 years. The USN / USAF / Army / Marine Corps have all pursued their own multi-decade procurement disasters. I wish that someone will break out of the mold and try shorter and faster contracts. We know the current model doesn't work, so lets try something different.

Next, the JSF can get avionic and engine improvements, but I don't know how they'll do external conformal fuel tanks. That will require changing the plane's skin and re-checking it for stealth performance. It hasn't been done before, so no one knows what adding a conformal tank will do. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying its unprecedented. We don't know the consequences / difficulties of trying a major body mod to a stealth fighter.

If I had to guess, a JSF mod would turn it into basically the F-16XL style of airframe; a large delta wing for added fuel fraction and range. Though, given that the Navy will probably write the contract for a two engine airplane, I don't think the JSF has a chance. (unless budget pressures force the USN to choose it as a second best option)

river_otter - I really don't get why anyone who argues for the JSF has decided to fight the notion that having more / cheaper aircraft is better than the JSF for fighting in virtually uncontested scenarios. That idea is ridiculous, we know that the JSF will struggle to meet the current 4th gen costs. Imagine how much cheaper it would have been to have built a 4th gen non-stealthy fighter with normal tech compared to the JSF's stealth and sensor fusion. Trying to defend that position is untenable. What is a far stronger argument is that the last 20 years were an aberration and that we cannot rely on the previous level of technological and operational dominance. In that situation, having fewer fighters is acceptable because their are competitive to 4th gen fighters when you factor in combat effectiveness.

Multiple aircrafrt seconds apart with multiple JDAMS dropped milliseconds apart in one pass will do the 'many bombs down one hole' trick AFAIK.

Back in the old days when CEPs were 75 feet multiple aircraft would roll in on the same target separated by a few seconds spacing to drop multiple bombs in ripple mode. This effort with often 4 aircraft required some practice though - not something done without practice most likely.

Ideas for such attacks with more modern weapons and aircraft (F-16s) contained here. I don't think my scenario above is covered therein though:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf (4.4Mb)

There was an airstrike in 1991 against Saddam's C&C bunker. That was the one that was finally detonated with the GBU-28. I think in that mission they tried using GBU-27s in the coordinated attack and didn't succeed. Though, my memory may be faulty on exactly what happened.

Perhaps if you ripple fired penetrating warheads that might get somewhere. Though, at that point one has to consider the opportunity cost of that target vs. trying a more indirect and cheaper, in terms of sorties, method. Perhaps just cratering the opening of the bunker and moving on to other targets. This is assuming that the military is facing a conflict where it is actually time and target constrained, not one where it can hit targets at will.

Realistically, the USAF will need some sort of fighter like the F-111 / F-15E to do these sort of missions, deep heavy strike with a large bomb load. The F-35 may be able to carry the 5000lb bunker buster, but that will probably hurt it extensively at range. (If the rocket assisted tech works for the 2k bomb, it can be applied to the 5k bomb to expand the target set). It may be the NGB, it may be something else, that depends on doctrinal evolution. This isn't a knock on the F-35, I just don't think the airframe was built to do those sort of missions so it isn't fair to demand it to do so.

On the other hand, the US tac nuke is being resized for the F-35 bomb bay. That will expand the target set in all sorts of directions...

'arkadyrenko' I think by now USAF knows very well how to destroy targets - whether they will let us know all the details remains to be seen. Here is part of a chalk blackboard briefing with just basic details in view. Other briefings will have covered the 'divisional bombing' aspect and it will have been covered earlier in training aircraft sorties and then operational aircraft sorties because it was really mayhem out there with bounce aircraft as well as 'bombers'.

Second graphic shows 'staggered' roll in on same target in th method described earlier.

arkadyrenko wrote:

river_otter - I really don't get why anyone who argues for the JSF has decided to fight the notion that having more / cheaper aircraft is better than the JSF for fighting in virtually uncontested scenarios. That idea is ridiculous, we know that the JSF will struggle to meet the current 4th gen costs. Imagine how much cheaper it would have been to have built a 4th gen non-stealthy fighter with normal tech compared to the JSF's stealth and sensor fusion. Trying to defend that position is untenable. What is a far stronger argument is that the last 20 years were an aberration and that we cannot rely on the previous level of technological and operational dominance. In that situation, having fewer fighters is acceptable because their are competitive to 4th gen fighters when you factor in combat effectiveness.

At least you can admit the problem is that you don't get it. Wink

You seem able to do basic arithmetic, but not actual math. If we need 1 JSF or 3,000 to meet the contested scenarios, we have to develop it. We can't rely on the idea that every threat to us over the next half century will be rural Afghanistan. We had to replace the F-117. The F-117 was very expensive to operate, and its stealth was becoming dated and less effective, so replacing it with new-build F-117s would be stupid. Developing a better stealth fighter for the strike role made more sense. So building a force of "cheap" 4th generation designs and developing a few silver bullet JSFs for contested scenarios in fact saves not one penny of development money compared to developing and building only JSFs.

Once developed, per-airframe build costs of the JSF are not significantly higher (in fact, they seem cheaper) than a 4th generation fighter plus all the pods it needs to work with modern precision weapons even in a permissive environment. Even if it's twice as expensive (and again, it's not), if it's twice as effective it's a wash. And as you still fail to account for, supporting two pilots, two tanks of fuel (OK, 1.5; the JSF does take need fuel per mile than an F-16), two sets of spare parts, and twice the ground crew to do the maintenance, is more expensive than maintaining one JSF even stateside. Not even counting when you have to drag that larger logistics chain closer to hostilities and provide it with protection. Life cycle costs will exceed the initial purchase price over the 50 year span of any program. JSF was designed using more mature technology to provide a lower life cycle cost. Remember, the time span between the F-16 and the JSF is actually greater than the time span between the F-86 and the F-16. A lot of technologies matured since 4th generation. A lot of it is more subtle than the change from subsonic to Mach 2, but no less real. The JSF is better than the F-16 by more than the F-16 was better than the F-86, and that includes improvements in the area of maintainability.

Now factor in that the same JSF is more effective in different phases of combat than a single 4th generation plane. The JSF is not the A-10, but its EO-DAS, synthetic aperture radar, and 25 mm cannon makes it more capable than the F-16 or F-18 in the CAS role. It's also capable of reaching a firefight faster than the A-10, and gets around the fact that the Navy has no carrier-based A-10s. If the airspace is truly uncontested, you can hang non-stealthy racks on the JSF and it has a greater payload than the A-10. And it's not even close that the JSF is more capable of providing air superiority than the A-10 is. It doesn't take much of a fighter threat for the A-10 to require air cover. It doesn't take much of a SAM threat for the A-10 to have to hug the earth and lose a lot of its situational awareness. The same wing of JSFs however is capable of protecting itself from both fighter and SAM threats while doing CAS and A2A, meaning two JSFs can in fact do the work of both two F-16s and two A-10s at the same time. Replace both the A-10 and F-16 with the JSF, and you've cut two separate logistics trains down to one. The savings is greater than merely shrinking one logistics train.

So unless you stick to a ridiculous scenario where nothing our pilots will have to face in the next half century is more dangerous than 2000-2011 Libya or Afghanistan, it is cheaper overall to go with JSF than 4th generation. And if the next 50 years really does consist of nothing more than pacifying small arms skirmishes in Afghanistan, it makes no sense at all to pay for even 4th generation fighters. Even the A-10 is overkill. An air force of Broncos and AC-130s would be more than adequate.

I don't know how you can credibly claim that operating the F-35 will be cheaper than operating 4th gen fighters, when the most recent reports show that the F-35's cost per flying hour will significantly exceed the current aircraft. Even without those recent reports, how can a more technologically complex aircraft cost less to operate than a less technologically complex aircraft? That doesn't make much sense. Furthermore, the F-35 won't be as good as the A-10 at CAS. The A-10 has better (lower) loiter speed and a lower general operating altitude. All the reports from Afghanistan and Iraq support the idea that the troops preferred the A-10 to other fast attack fighters.

Next, if we're going around bombing lots of small and easy targets, number of airframes matters more than the individual complexity of each particular airframe. In the 2 vs 6 argument, 2 F-35s can hit two targets per sortie. The 6 F-16s can hit 6 targets per sortie. Or, the 2 F-35s can be in two places at one time, 4 or 6 F-16s can be in more places at one time. Numbers matter when they can be brought to bear. The JSF argument is that numbers cannot be brought to bear.

Your last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter, if the US doesn't face serious opponents in the next 50 years, the JSF doesn't make any sense. So stop pretending that the JSF is an automatic upgrade for the USAF. It is not. It is only an upgrade in a world where the USAF faces serious threats.

Which gets to another point, the F-35 is not a jack of all trades. It is not designed to carry 5klb bunker busters on deep penetration missions. It will probably be significantly more expensive that 4th gen fighters. It won't be a high speed high altitude interception speed demon. Those are all most likely going to be true, and beside the point. The JSF can be justified even if all of those previous arguments are 110% correct; trying to fight even the smallest knock against the airframe is rather silly.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

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