F-16.net

Sundowner wrote:

Everything's fine... but what about WVR fight ? Without under wing pylons with short range missiles, you have only AMRAAMs and canon. How would that work in dogfight with any modern fighter when its performance is only as good as theirs ? Not well I think.

So far you can't put AIM-9X inside because it's LOBL missile, and when in firing position it can't see much, and the only proven LOAL missile so far is Python 5.. which simply won't fit inside the weapons bay.

Three things:-

(1) With the current state of WVR AAM technology, you are just as likely to get dead in a WVR fight -- when the enemy can literally see you -- in a Raptor, or a Typhoon, or an SU. It matters very little whether you have better agility than your opponent because nobody is going to try to get on your tail and it is pretty darn impossible to stay out of the forward 180 degree hemisphere of your enemy. Hence, the key is not to get into a dogfight and the same applies to a Raptor. A dogfight is where an F-86 with AIM-9Xes and a Raptor can kill each other.

(2) The AIM-9X was designed from day one to incorporate LOAL capability. This is not just to support launch from an internal bay, but also to support launch based on JHMCS cues in a direction where the target may be obstructed by the wing, fuselage or is outside the missile's approximately 180 degree seeker field of view. This capability is currently being certified and will be operationally cleared way before the F-35 enters service or enters weapons trails for that matter. It is not the lack of LOAL facility that bumps the AIM-9X off the list of weapons to be certified for the F-35's internal bays by LRIP (circa 2010). It is because there are tons of weapons to be certified and the AIM-9X is a low priority. The ASRAAM did make it however and it practically shares the seeker with the AIM-9X.

(3) The AIM-9X -- when mounted on the door ejectors will be able to look around decently. There will be view obstructions, but so does the side bay rails on the F-22.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2847

With the AIM-9x and AIM-132, it is also quite possible that a kill could step over into the BVR category in a head on shot. Wink

This could be even more dangerous with an AESA jet that has LPIR performance. Fire the AIM-9X or AIM-132 and you have some reach on a head on shot before the other guy gets his HOBS-dogfight missile off. And or before he even visually sees you. So there is some serious situational awareness issues that these weapons can take care of. What really makes the X good for the U.S. besides the fact that it is a good missile is that we have a large existing stock of sidewinder components (that is how that family was designed) and support gear.

elp wrote:

With the AIM-9x and AIM-132, it is also quite possible that a kill could step over into the BVR category in a head on shot. Wink

This could be even more dangerous with an AESA jet that has LPIR performance. Fire the AIM-9X or AIM-132 and you have some reach on a head on shot before the other guy gets his HOBS-dogfight missile off. And or before he even visually sees you. So there is some serious situational awareness issues that these weapons can take care of. What really makes the X good for the U.S. besides the fact that it is a good missile is that we have a large existing stock of sidewinder components (that is how that family was designed) and support gear.

The ASRAAM was designed with that in mind -- hence the 6" class motor. But the AIM-9X may be a stretch at 40km.

Nonetheless, the kind of turning dogfight where fighters trying to get on to and stay on the tail of their opponents while getting the Sidewinder to see and lock onto the target within the HUD or firing off gun bursts at times is pretty much history. Even modern WVR fight is likely to be one where fighters make a very fast pass turning very little and firing off WVR AAM snap shots while keeping the energy up and dumping countermeasures or using an active jammer. You then pray and keep you fingers crossed.

Enthusiast Joined: Mar 13, 2007 Posts: 98 Status: Offline

A little higher? A little faster? In other words the F-22 is only a little faster than the F-15/16 tag team. Is that what you want to go on the record as stating? A plane that jets around effortlessly at above 1.5 Mach (publicly) is only a little faster than the current crop of fighters? No way Jose'.

Here, from AFA.org, stated in print, the F-35 is not as agile as the F-22. That is to say in english, its not as good as a fighter as the F-22. Also stated, its an attack plane.

With the F-35 you're limited to flying missions at its capabilities: subsonic, low and slow. At least with the F-22 you have the choice of what kind of mission profile you want to go with.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2007/0407world.asp

Please. You're not talking about 0.2 on the airspeed between the 2 Lockmarts. More like 0.7+ when its all said and done.

fox100 wrote:

A little higher? A little faster? In other words the F-22 is only a little faster than the F-15/16 tag team. Is that what you want to go on the record as stating? A plane that jets around effortlessly at above 1.5 Mach (publicly) is only a little faster than the current crop of fighters? No way Jose'.

Here, from AFA.org, stated in print, the F-35 is not as agile as the F-22. That is to say in english, its not as good as a fighter as the F-22. Also stated, its an attack plane.

No, it is not a little slower than an F-22. It is a little slower compared to the best 4th generation type such as the SU-27 or the Typhoon, and just as fast as the average 4th generation fighter. This is especially true in terms of practical operational speed where these platforms will be saddled with external stores can cannot realize 100% of their aerodynamic performance.

The same thing goes for operational ceiling, it'll fly just as high and handle just as well as any other fighter other than the F-22 and perhaps specialized platforms like the Foxbat.

fox100 wrote:

With the F-35 you're limited to flying missions at its capabilities: subsonic, low and slow. At least with the F-22 you have the choice of what kind of mission profile you want to go with.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2007/0407world.asp

Please. You're not talking about 0.2 on the airspeed between the 2 Lockmarts. More like 0.7+ when its all said and done.

The F-35 doesn't have to fly slow, it also doesn't have to fly low. If you want, you can fly it at Mach 1.8 at 50,000+ ft. The difference is that when doing so its fuel consumption will be about 2.5 times higher than the Raptor and its supersonic endurance will be about half that of the Raptor.

There is also a good chance that the F-35 will be able to cruise at marginally supersonic speeds (Mach 1.1~1.3) just like the F-16 and the Eurocanards can without afterburners. The difference is that these aircrafts have to be practically clean to do it and they aren't much use in combat practically clean. The F-35 on the other hand will be able to pack a typical strike (2~8 bombs + 2 AAMs) or A2A (4~6 AAMs) warload while being completely clean.

The F-35 also has superior range compared to the Raptor, a superior strike ordnance capacity and superior overall sensor package. It'll need less maintenance and less logistical support. Most importantly, it'll cost 1/3 as much to build. So the question really is whether 1 Raptor is preferable to 3 F-35s.

psychmike wrote:

seat_dreamer wrote:

That question dwindles around my mind for some time now: Does the F-35 have the 9g capabilities of the Viper or is it more limited ? I'd imagine the answer is yes, but I'd like some more educated response....

The USAF and STOVL versions are 9-g rated but the CVN version is 7-g rated with an over-ride switch. I wonder if instantaneous and sustaind g-capabilities are significantly different from gen-4 fighters.

Mike

Actually, the CTOL version is the only version capable of sustained 9G maneuvering. The CV version is limited to 7.5G, but has an emergency 9G maneuver envelope. The STOVL is limited to 7G.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: My favorite of the bunch is the F-35A CTOL model. It will have performance levels equal to or better than the F-16 flown in it's optimal configuration (and the CV and STOVL won't be slouches either). It will carry (2) 2,000lb class JDAMs or ( Cool

SDBs or a combination of, and still carry (2) AMRAAMs and a 25MM gun all internally, as well has having over 2.5 times the internal fuel of the F-16. It also has the flexability to carry more (on it's wings) if need be. The unit price per? Currently about the same as the latest Vipers rolling off the assembly line.

Something no upgraded Viper will ever be equal to the Lightning II: Stealth. That's the Lightning's biggest advantage. For about the same price, you're getting an aircraft that is more survivable than the latest F-16 will ever be. Future Lightning II pilots are going to love that part.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 Posts: 77 Status: Offline

Fox seems to forget that this is not an only Air Force fighter. With the USN and USMC also ordering this aircraft, this must be taken in to consideration. Also, as noted its more logical to build the F-35. Everyone would drive a Ferarri over a Ford Pinto anyday, but if the Pinto
can do what I need it to do and cost less to do it, logic wins and thats that. You seem to me to be the kind of person who always has to have the latest, greatest thing out there even though there are other things out there that can do the job required as asked for. Everybody has a budget, even the US government.

I don't know your history or your experience with military aircraft, only your opinions you have shared. I can only say that if history proves correct, and I expect that it shall, the F-35 WILL be an aircraft to be reckoned with. I am pretty sure LM and the government knows what it is doing, else the aircraft would not exist to begin with. If you do have the money to buy a Ferarri, go get it. Realistic people will get the Pinto, and be more than satisfied.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 Posts: 77 Status: Offline

P.S.
Almost nothing here has been verified but is only pure speculation. Granted much of what is said is logical. I can write anything I want if I want justify my way of thinking, but in the end it is still only personal opinion. I love the F-22 just as much as the next person. At the same time, its not the answer to everything. Its like saying that there is one pill that will cure all of your problems, regardless of cost. Just my 2 cents.

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3006 Status: Offline

Quote:

I love the F-22 just as much as the next person. At the same time, its not the answer to everything. Its like saying that there is one pill that will cure all of your problems, regardless of cost. Just my 2 cents.

Yep, it'll never be a heavy bomber Wink

I'm just glad it's on my side Thumb

!

Quote:

So far you can't put AIM-9X inside because it's LOBL missile, and when in firing position it can't see much, and the only proven LOAL missile so far is Python 5.. which simply won't fit inside the weapons bay.

Nope. ASRAAM offers LOAL too. In short time the 9X (according to Raytheon site) will offer too.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 23, 2005 Posts: 64 Status: Offline

It's good to hear the AIM-9X will be LOAL, wonder if it only be programming issue.

For the dogfights - they will still happen. In 60s there were people who said there will be no turn fights because of the new BVR missiles. In Vietnam those missile showed only 10% accuracy. Today some say that HOBS with missiles like R-73, AIM-9X, Iris-T etc. will negate the planes maneuverability. Forgetting that where is threat there is countermeasure. Automatic systems to detect missile launch, and blind its seeker with laser or microwave beam, are already here, and used against MANPADs, soon will be good enough to counter new a2a missiles, and then again the fight will be guns only Wink

Enthusiast Joined: Mar 13, 2007 Posts: 98 Status: Offline

Sundowner wrote:

It's good to hear the AIM-9X will be LOAL, wonder if it only be programming issue.

For the dogfights - they will still happen. In 60s there were people who said there will be no turn fights because of the new BVR missiles. In Vietnam those missile showed only 10% accuracy. Today some say that HOBS with missiles like R-73, AIM-9X, Iris-T etc. will negate the planes maneuverability. Forgetting that where is threat there is countermeasure. Automatic systems to detect missile launch, and blind its seeker with laser or microwave beam, are already here, and used against MANPADs, soon will be good enough to counter new a2a missiles, and then again the fight will be guns only Wink

Well there you have it. Do you want to enter into a turning engagement with an airplane that can't flee the scnene when needed without lighting up her exhaust can like a blowtorch or rather have an airplane that can get out of Dodge an 1.7+ mach without lifting up her skirt and giving the game away to an IR seeker? Here on one hand you have a piece of harware that can out turn, out accel, and out run anything else in the sky; and on the other hand you have a piece of hardware whose perfromance is no better than what we (and the bad guys) already have who has only 1 saving grace and that is some degree of LO. Not only that, but something which has peformance figures that are very very likely to be outclassed by what the other guys are going to be rolling out soon. All the LO in the world don't matter when someone's got you in their HUD with a finger on the trigger and able to unleash a hundred round or so of hot metal. If there's ever a big shooting war there's going to be so much electromagnetic interferece in the air you'll be able to get out on walk on it. When everyones radar info is garbage the game degenerates into good ol' WWI style turning and shooting and hiding in clouds and attacking from the Sun. What do you want? A plane that belongs in the All Star game of fighters, or something that bats 5th in your line up position? (Sorry, for baseball analogy). While the F-35 may have some nifty electronic stuff and gives the pilot a view that will rival and surpass going to an IMAX, its still hemmed in by its performance numbers. Just becasue you can a missile coming at you from 360 degrees of view does not mean that you have the ability to do a damned thing about it except get your pulse and blood pressure up. Do we really need a piece of equipment at 350 billion dollars just because it can carry an extra 2000 pounds (but numerically no greater quantity than the F-22) a2g munitions, who also has a much much less performance numbers? The F-35s mission profile is High&Slow or Low&Slow. You're talking about sending in an airplane whose going to tip the scales at over 44000+ pounds with one engine to drop 2 bombs from close proximity to the target. I see no common sense in buying into this airplane when you have something that do that mission wich greater ease and greater survivability. Just because Captain John Doe has a panoramic picture window to look out at the world, why should that equate into anything? You're can out turn a missile, especially not in this fat and slow turkey when its full of fuel and 4000 pounds of bombs and couple hundred pounds of missiles and 23mm rounds whose thrust to weight numbers are going to be very lack luster in non-afterburner flying, the very same type of flying you're going to be doing while doing your weapons drops. We're throwing away everything learned and gained in the ATF program as far as performance is concerned. And the last time I reported to work, fighters were supposed to take advantage of everything that gave them the highest levels of performance. All the procesing power in the world don't matter when some piece of hot metal is going to tear into you... Situational awareness is great, but you have to be able to do something with the information being presented.

Quote:

Do we really need a piece of equipment at 350 billion dollars just because it can carry an extra 2000 pounds (but numerically no greater quantity than the F-22) a2g munitions, who also has a much much less performance numbers? The F-35s mission profile is High&Slow or Low&Slow.

I think this has been covered many times. But it hasn't stopped so many individuals from using it as a talking point.

Firstly, it is NOT $350 billion. Even by GAO standards (which is NEVER program friendly) it is $280 billion give or take five. And it is not for 2000 pounds of weapons carraige, it is for three times as many aircrafts as the same amount of money would have bought in F-22s over the next 30 years. Three times as many aircrafts which has all he most important ingredients for air combat success.

Secondly, the mission profile of the F-35 does not have to be high&slow or low&slow. The F-35 can fly at Mach 1.7 too. The difference is that doing so will cost ~2.5x as much fuel per lb of thrust. Nonetheless, there is enough fuel in the F-35 to fly a significant portion of the mission at full afterburner. The F-35 carries 2.5x as much fuel as an F-16 for instance. In fact, the amount of fuel the F-35 carries is roughly equivalent to the weight of an entire F-16.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2847

We have yet to see what JSF costs. Paying for Operation: Useless Dirt means that the budget can drift off into never never land.

Thinking that the JSF can do all of the F-22 mission sets as safely is a reach. As the F-22 will never be carrier capable or STOVL the reverse is true.

Quote:

In 60s there were people who said there will be no turn fights because of the new BVR missiles. In Vietnam those missile showed only 10% accuracy.

The above quote is based on technology that is 1.5 to 2 generations old. I guarantee it has progressed since then.

While I don't doubt that dogfights will cease to happen in modern air combat (and the reason why I'm a big advocate to keeping WVR skills sharp by constant training), they will not be the norm, and will be a rare occurrence (at least by U.S. standards). Even how they are initiated has changed as repeatedly demonstrated by the F-22. The F-35 will be on a similar scale.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 without Stealth