Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

haavarla wrote:

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.

What you're forgetting is the missile's not being shot at a static target.

Fire an OTS shot and even if it does a complete skid turn and bleeds all the energy the launch plane gave it to zero, the chasing plane already gives it an approach speed of approximately Mach 1 (or more) even if the missile itself has an airspeed of zero. If the missile does nothing but hover in space, the chase plane will close the distance with it and smack itself in the face with the missile. For free from the missile's perspective. So an OTS missile shot doesn't need a great deal of inherent range to kill its target. Solid rocket motors also have t:w ratios and low drag that no jet can even come close to, so energy recovery for a missile is much better; high launch energy and energy retention are a bonus, but not necessary anywhere near like it is for a fighter. Modern short and medium range AAMs will also pull 20+g on thrust vectoring alone, so they don't even need a lot of kinetic energy to maneuver like an aircraft does. They can point and accelerate to change direction more powerfully than any plane can turn. It helps them if they do have more kinetic energy, but it's only icing on the cake.

You also forget an OTS shot is not a preferred shot, but a defensive shot. It doesn't actually need to kill its target. The purpose of it is to force the chase plane to maneuver to avoid it, bleed off its energy, lose its lock, and increase the distance between it and the F-35. The chase plane can continue to chase the F-35, but then it will take a HOBS shot in the face and die. Maybe a mutual kill with the F-35, but it will die. Or it can avoid the missile (its chances of doing so are better than if the F-35 had a preferred firing solution), but then the F-35 gets away. Which is the point.

F-16.net Sponsor

count_to_10 wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

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...

I think F-24 through F-34 were skipped when somebody decided to call the production version of the X-35 the F-35. So most likely it'll be the F-36.
The F-36 Sabre II! Twisted Evil

jeffb wrote:

AIM-9X slides of the rail doesn't it? Inner door station is an ejector. Possibly they need to update/redesign the software on the AIM-9X to get it to perform a drop/engine fire sequence like AIM-120 or ASRAAM.

LtoR AIM-120, AIM-9, AGM-88:

They'll have clearance issues with those big fins won't they?

That's an AIM-9M. The 9X has much smaller fins.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Spudman, going in order.

1. May have misunderstood about the maneuvering discussion. But arguing that the F-35 isn't in an awkward position if it has to run away is silly. Of course it'll be in an awkward position. Everyone will be.

It depends on what "run away" means. If the F-35 has dropped it's bombs and is RTB, then it is normal. OTOH if it has fired a AAM and can still provide post-shot updates while heading in the opposite direction, what's the harm?

arkadyrenko wrote:

4. I was under the impression that the whole point of the JDRADM program was to combine anti-radiation and air-to-air modes into one missile. That combination is of particular importance if you need to fit the missile into the weapons bay of a fighter. If the NGM is just a revamped AIM-120; then one looses the whole point of the JDRADM program. And, without the combined weapons capability in one missile, the F-35 'self-escort' capability decreases.

What the NGM ends up being has not been decided. Since new upgrades to AMRAAM are already in the works (new dual-pulse motor, seeker, etc) then NGM may end up being an AIM-120E.

arkadyrenko wrote:

5. The question was AIM-9X, not AARGM. And if the F-35 can't carry AIM-9X, that's silly.

If it's not a requirement, how is it silly?

arkadyrenko wrote:

As for the F-35 carrying 12 missiles, fun but besides the point in this discussion. Unless you're fighting the North Koreans. At which point every A2A pilot will have the 'ace in a day' look in their eyes.

Imagine using the Boeing idea of a VLO pod with 4 AAMs inside. Put that on the F-35's inboard stations and you could have 12 AAMs without severe drag and RCS penalties.

Which country has hordes of fighters that need to be shot down by F-35's laden with masses of AAM's?

In which scenario do the enemy hordes get close and need to be shot by 9X because they're SO CLOSE that AMRAAM can't do it?

Did anyone bother to think that maybe the F-35 that shoots the bad guy isn't the F-35 that is SO CLOSE to the bad guy?

Russia:
About 300 Su-27
15 Su-30, 30 more on order
48 Su-35 on order
226 MiG-29
Over 600 Su-24
241 Su-25
About 200 MiG-31
Eventually 124 Su-34

China:

260 J-10
About 100 Su-30 MKK
140 J-11
76 Su-27
360 J-8
350 J-7
Around 300 bombers and attackers, additional fighters and bombers in PLAN.

According to wikipedia.

It would be for an alert type of mission.

Imagine that you have a flight of two F-35s on near the border. Things have been heating up recently and there is a surprise attack possible.

On the ground are 2-4 more F-35s on standby. They each have 12 AAMs (4 internal and 8 external).

The Border F-35's detect multiple inbound bogeys (both fighters, bombers, and low flying cruise missiles) and they call for assistance.

The Alert F-35's take off with 6 planes worth of AAMs in only 2 airframes. Remember that smaller countries cannot afford the number of F-35s that can keep 6 on alert 24/7.

Once the Alert F-35s are airborne they can engage the highest threats first and leave the rest to follow-on F-35s.

On the other side of the coin (and more import if the LO pod is developed), when NGM comes online and can be carried in large numbers, popup threats are minimized.

shingen wrote:

Which country has hordes of fighters that need to be shot down by F-35's laden with masses of AAM's?

In which scenario do the enemy hordes get close and need to be shot by 9X because they're SO CLOSE that AMRAAM can't do it?

Did anyone bother to think that maybe the F-35 that shoots the bad guy isn't the F-35 that is SO CLOSE to the bad guy?

Russia:
About 300 Su-27
15 Su-30, 30 more on order
48 Su-35 on order
226 MiG-29
Over 600 Su-24
241 Su-25
About 200 MiG-31
Eventually 124 Su-34

China:

260 J-10
About 100 Su-30 MKK
140 J-11
76 Su-27
360 J-8
350 J-7
Around 300 bombers and attackers, additional fighters and bombers in PLAN.

According to wikipedia.

If these numbers are correct, why do we need 2443 F-35s? The F-22s, plus 800-1000 F-35s should do, with the money saved invested in hypersonic low-orbital bombers that can deliver precision weapons to kill enemy aircraft on the ground.

Is 2443 1 for 1 replacement of other platforms?

Regardless, it's not going to happen.

Labor costs in China are going up. Information is spreading in China and more people will want to be in the middle class. Invading Taiwan doesn't move anyone into the middle class.

Russia is a resource exporter with declining demographics.

I can't see the Russian military building up any real capability. T-95 cancelled. Buying amphibs from France. Endless problems with subs and nuke missiles. Seems like the only thing they're still good at is SAMs.

Most of the fighters on the wiki list have mechanically scanned radars and older style EW.

China can afford a build up but if they become democratic it probably won't be directed against us.

firstimpulse wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

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...

I think F-24 through F-34 were skipped when somebody decided to call the production version of the X-35 the F-35. So most likely it'll be the F-36.
The F-36 Sabre II! Twisted Evil

On the topic of fighter names, I'm surprised they didn't name the F-35 the Warhawk II. More P-40s were built than P-38s, and I think more countries used them, too.

I'm trying to understand the whole notion of the F-35 being unable to run away(and what circumstances would result in this being the case). Just how fast do you think that enemy fighters can fly with combat loads, to chase it down? The fastest that F-15s have flown in combat is ~M1.4. The F-35 need only get out of sensor range, so unless it was in WVR conditions, it'd likely take a Mig-31 to have the speed/endurance necessary to catch up to it.

wrightwing wrote:

I'm trying to understand the whole notion of the F-35 being unable to run away(and what circumstances would result in this being the case). Just how fast do you think that enemy fighters can fly with combat loads, to chase it down? The fastest that F-15s have flown in combat is ~M1.4. The F-35 need only get out of sensor range, so unless it was in WVR conditions, it'd likely take a Mig-31 to have the speed/endurance necessary to catch up to it.

These discussions remind me stories I've heard first hand from an F-4 pilot in Vietnam about "stumbling" onto the occasional mig or mig 2 ship and how he'd have to let them go because of fuel or what he was carrying or rather not carrying. Look, not every dinosaur in jurassic park has an insatiable taste for human blood, and not every mig and sukhoi is some magical plane that's going to pounce on an unsuspecting -35... not that there is even going to be such a thing as an unsuspecting -35. And what are you supposed to outrun anyway? Unless you're in a SR-71 at 3.5 and 120k, you're not outrunning anything.... and you're only trying to outrun in order to get out sensor/weapon range which the -35 does via passive LO rather than by speed. Whats the difference between a raptor a 1.6M and a -35 at at-least mach 1 cruise... a couple hundred knots and thats the entire difference which means squat to any aam (without going into LO) It'll have to take a war before some people can believe the -35 isn't a lead slug

sewerrat wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

I'm trying to understand the whole notion of the F-35 being unable to run away(and what circumstances would result in this being the case). Just how fast do you think that enemy fighters can fly with combat loads, to chase it down? The fastest that F-15s have flown in combat is ~M1.4. The F-35 need only get out of sensor range, so unless it was in WVR conditions, it'd likely take a Mig-31 to have the speed/endurance necessary to catch up to it.

These discussions remind me stories I've heard first hand from an F-4 pilot in Vietnam about "stumbling" onto the occasional mig or mig 2 ship and how he'd have to let them go because of fuel or what he was carrying or rather not carrying. Look, not every dinosaur in jurassic park has an insatiable taste for human blood, and not every mig and sukhoi is some magical plane that's going to pounce on an unsuspecting -35... not that there is even going to be such a thing as an unsuspecting -35. And what are you supposed to outrun anyway? Unless you're in a SR-71 at 3.5 and 120k, you're not outrunning anything.... and you're only trying to outrun in order to get out sensor/weapon range which the -35 does via passive LO rather than by speed. Whats the difference between a raptor a 1.6M and a -35 at at-least mach 1 cruise... a couple hundred knots and thats the entire difference which means squat to any aam (without going into LO) It'll have to take a war before some people can believe the -35 isn't a lead slug

The idea is that unless the pursuers somehow get WVR, the F-35's stealth will protect it from even being found in the first place, even when running away.

count_to_10 wrote:

firstimpulse wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

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...

I think F-24 through F-34 were skipped when somebody decided to call the production version of the X-35 the F-35. So most likely it'll be the F-36.
The F-36 Sabre II! Twisted Evil

On the topic of fighter names, I'm surprised they didn't name the F-35 the Warhawk II. More P-40s were built than P-38s, and I think more countries used them, too.

The 38's are far more fondly remembered, and had better performance than their normal adversaries. I find the names interesting though none the less... Kinda feel like starting a thread on it.

Anyways, time to get back On Topic

Quote:

The 38's are far more fondly remembered, and had better performance than their normal adversaries. I find the names interesting though none the less... Kinda feel like starting a thread on it.

Anyways, time to get back On Topic

Where would we start that thread?
(The Flying Tigers were famously P-40s...)

Since the F-35 is a single engine aircraft with purported long range, the name Mustang II would have made more sense to me than Lightening II. Just saying.

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

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