Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

haavarla wrote:

Quote:

You're not going to be shooting over the shoulder anywhere near maximum missile range. If you had that kind of distance to work with, you'd turn and shoot them in the face. You'll be shooting well under maximum range, at a target that is itself closing on your location at transsonic to supersonic speeds. So the burn time, effective range, and energy loss can all be safely summed up as a reminder to you as "more than

Thx for making my point.
When an F-35 have to launch an 'over the shoulder missile', wouldn't it be fair to say it is allready on someones scope?
more than Possible in an unfavoured position, so lets say the effective missile range get chopped down to 65-75%.
Would this be more than adequate?
Poor choice of words i'd say..

What is your point in the discussion?

At long range, the missile is fired to the front.

At short range, which is not the favored situation, it can be fired HOBS. This lowers the range but still allows a kill.

In both situations the superior maneuverability of oppo systems is negated, a trend that has been going on since the F-15/Sparrow/AWACS combo and is in fact the correct trend in A2A. Supermaneuverability being a failed side path abandoned by the US in the '80's after X-plane tests.

F-16.net Sponsor

haavarla wrote:

Quote:

You're not going to be shooting over the shoulder anywhere near maximum missile range. If you had that kind of distance to work with, you'd turn and shoot them in the face. You'll be shooting well under maximum range, at a target that is itself closing on your location at transsonic to supersonic speeds. So the burn time, effective range, and energy loss can all be safely summed up as a reminder to you as "more than

Thx for making my point.
When an F-35 have to launch an 'over the shoulder missile', wouldn't it be fair to say it is allready on someones scope?
more than Possible in an unfavoured position, so lets say the effective missile range get chopped down to 65-75%.
Would this be more than adequate?
Poor choice of words i'd say..

An over the shoulder shot is clear desperation. But even at that reduced range would be effective enough to keep a similarly armed opponent from being able to close to effective range since he would be pursuing you and your objective if you take the OTS approach is simply to get him to go away. If you are using the same weapons and the other side is in a tail chase it should roughly cancel out I would think. Your missile has to tail chase and go further if you are pursuing after all.

Arent you forgeting one important piece in this puzzle!
The speed(KIAS) of both platform prior to missile launch.

The higher the speed, the higher energy bleed for the over the shoulder missile and more advantage for the chase missile, even if it has to play the catch-up game..
Its not like the F-35 will hit AB and go past Mach 1.6 anyway.
It gives the chase missile some leverage..

shingen@
So the F-22 with its super expensive TVC nozzles system is part of your 'abandomed Supermaneuverability 80's path.. got it.
Why didn't LM opt for the YF-23 nozzles configuration then?

F-22:

VLO
Sensors
Supercruise
TV so it can maneuver at high altitude
Continuation of the engage at range path. If you can't see that you don't belong here.

Whopsidooh..
I give you credit for one thing, you are very good at pointing out whats playing in your favor.
Too bad you allways conviniently forget stuff like this:

The Mig-31 do supercruise and manuvere quite well without any TV.
The nozzles design for the YF-23 was by history deemed even more VLO then the F-22 nozzles design.
Sensors?? so the F-22 sensors force it to use TVC design.. sorry your logic escapes me.

Let me try:

TVC design as expensive, maintanance and weight increase as it is, does this:

Supermaneuverability 80's path, with the fortunate biproduct of beeing more efficiant in high altitude/speed manuvering(less drag).

come on!
Its not like LM thought, -hey the TVC is so retro 80's and so not needed, its beeing so expensive and all.. but hey, lets design it and put it on the F-22 for good measures anyway.

Just do us all a favor and put your Supermaneuverability 80's path on that F-22 list of yours..

Quote:

"The Mig-31 do supercruise and manuvere quite well without any TV."

MiG-31 max supersonic g: 5

Wasn't aware it didn't use burners to go over Mach 1. Thanks for breaking that story. I've never seen that before.

Alllow me re-phrase then.
The Mig-31 do supercruise, prolonged supersonic dash and manuvere nicly at very high altitude. All this with no TVC. It is not needed. Still it has much of the same role as F-22. Speed and altidude intercept.

It can easily get supercruise without AB. But it is more efficiant to use AB when accellerating up, through the transonic regime and through the lower altitude right up to its intended level. As with the F-22, belive it or not. you don't have to stay on AB for long.

There! Better?

Why are you even mention G-load and AB here?
Anyone can identify the Mig-31 and F-22 for two different platform.

Lets stick with the TVC Supermaneuverability 80's path debate here.
As you fail to explain why the F-22 have it..

river_otter wrote:

So the solution to the F-35 development costs being high is to build fewer of them, and then spend even more money de novo to develop a vastly inferior replacement aircraft based on 1960s technology?

Development costs are sunk money at this point. All that matters, now, is per-aircraft build costs, and how much capability you are buying with each of those built aircraft. Your A-12 example is a perfect example of this. We paid how much for the A-12? And how much capability did we get out of that? Development is development, build is build. To try to punish the build costs because the development went over budget in the past is like cutting off your own nose because you're angry at your face. Who suffers for that?

Some good points Otter. However, there is a huge chasm between "60s technology" and the F-35. And I'm not saying I think a 4.5 legacy fighter is the answer. But I'm a realist. The F-35 numbers are going to get cut. That may leave us with a gap or a significantly reduced fleet.

Here is a question for all those interested in how this is really going to pan out in Washington. Would we rather have (in the USAF):

a. 850 F-35s, or,

b. 350 F-35s, 800 block 60+ F-16s and perhaps 150 EA-18Gs (or F-15 based equivalents) ?

This is based on a projected costs of the F-35 at those purchase levels (assuming decent Naval and Foreign participation), $75 mil for the 16s and $100 mil for the EAs. That puts the two lots above at a roughly equivalent cost. I said ROUGHLY. Please, in all responses choose between a. or b. based on what will give the USAF a better fleet for the next 25 years, say 2017 to 2042.

I don't know my own opinion for sure, I'm still formulating it. Quantity vs quality is a tough call. Remember, the force will still have it's F-22s and UAVs to augment either option. At some point in the late 2020s, the next fighter would presumably start being developed. The Air Force may not want option b., but it's plausible that it could happen. Which would everyone on here prefer. a. or b. ???

The important thing to compare is the marginal unit cost when talking about unit mixes. Once you have 350 F-35s, how much does the 351st one cost? How much does the next F-16 or F-18 cost? After that, you have to ask about operating costs. If the F-35 gives you similar numbers to the other two, you definitely don't want to buy the older aircraft.

I would personally set the EA capability as a requirement. My personal ideal roadmap for the USAF would be more B until A becomes available. We keep the 300-400 or so newest Vipers and upgrade them to F-16V with everything LM can chuck into the airframe, while replacing the older airframes with F-35s. Over time, as the F-35 matures, it would replace the Super Vipers.
The F-X, or NGAD, or whatever future air dominance fighter we conceive, should be a two-man heavy-class fighter with an accent on AWACS and electronic combat. It would replace the F-22 and EA-18/EF-15E. It would serve as the long-range eyes and ears for the F-35, handle the dedicated EW role, and provide a decisive A2A platform for strikes. Basically, I see this aircraft (let's call it the F-24 Phantom III Cool

) loitering over target areas at 50k+ altitude, using theoretical 360-degree AESA to control F-35s and UCAVs, while others suppress enemy defenses and deal with interceptors.

Think about the costs of a mixed fleet.

France is going to one plane.

Russia stopped producing the MiG-29 so they could get more of the vastly superior T-10 series.

It takes a rich country to procure and sustain two new types, forget about more.

We'll end up with the 22, 35, and 18.

I agree with the fact that multiple air frames are more costly. And count to 10 makes a very good point about the 351st F-35. Still, because it could very well happen, I think I'll make a poll / new thread out of this question.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

All the early blocks will only carry 4 AIM-120s each, with the possibility of adding another two later on (don't ask me how they plan to do it). The AIM-9X will not fit in the internal bays, but the European ASRAAM can take the place of two AIM-120s on the door rails. My understanding is that all three missiles can be carried externally, but I'm not sure if the pylons can be ejected. If the plane has pylons installed, they've pretty much decided to give up VLO already, so ejecting them seems immaterial.

In any case, you will almost never see the F-35 carry more than two A2A weapons of any type, and four in a pinch A2A role will almost certainly be plenty given the AIM-120's reliability record. How often does a fighter pilot get to take more than four shots these days anyways?

AIM-9X BLK II could be deployed by the ASRAAM trapeze launchers. but right now, the UK is the only partner with an internal short range IR AAM requirement.

delvo wrote:

The two-AMRAAM adapter hasn't yet had any static ground tests or flight tests, but is definitely coming.

In what was the best Christmas present of my life, some other people and I were given an unclassified briefing and tour of AA-1 after the first flight in 2006 (but before the second flight in 2007). At the time, I was able to have a few minutes to ask Jon Beesley. a few questions (mine centered around survivability - the dual screen displays which led to learning that there wasn't a RAT, but the 'integrated power package' that had some type of battery backup). Letting someone else talk to Jon, I joined the others doing a 'no-touch' walk around. While sticking my head in the weapons bay, one of the other guests asked the crew chief 'how many AIM-120s can fit into the bay'. The crew chief told us something along the lines of 'initially only 4 (2x2), but they (Lockheed) designed the bays for 6 (3x3)'. Someone asked something like 'why not 6 now' with the reply given that 'there wasn't a need yet - the F/A-35 was a small 'f' with a big 'A' and the F/A-22 was meant to be the big 'F' and little 'a' (yes, he actually used the terms F/A for the -35 and [Link pending approval] most of the people with me weren't that savvy)'. When asking if the allies who were getting it as their primary (A2A defense) fighter wanted more 120's, we were told that's why the feature was planned 'down the pipeline' (for the allies).

It felt like the underlying message meshed with that semi-popular [Link pending approval] that was while there was a chance for the F-22 production to continue, Lockheed wasn't going to push the F-35's A2A credentials.

Now that the F-22 isn't an [Link pending approval] I'd guess all bets are off.

Info about the IPP, backup, etc, [Link pending approval]
[url][Link pending approval][/url]

southernphantom wrote:

I would personally set the EA capability as a requirement. My personal ideal roadmap for the USAF would be more B until A becomes available. We keep the 300-400 or so newest Vipers and upgrade them to F-16V with everything LM can chuck into the airframe, while replacing the older airframes with F-35s. Over time, as the F-35 matures, it would replace the Super Vipers.
The F-X, or NGAD, or whatever future air dominance fighter we conceive, should be a two-man heavy-class fighter with an accent on AWACS and electronic combat. It would replace the F-22 and EA-18/EF-15E. It would serve as the long-range eyes and ears for the F-35, handle the dedicated EW role, and provide a decisive A2A platform for strikes. Basically, I see this aircraft (let's call it the F-24 Phantom III Cool

) loitering over target areas at 50k+ altitude, using theoretical 360-degree AESA to control F-35s and UCAVs, while others suppress enemy defenses and deal with interceptors.

Phantom III?
I don't know. I'm kind of hoping for a Blackcat or Panther...

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

F-35 semi-stealth to stealth transition in Air to Air fight?