Forum: F-35 Lightning II

elp wrote:

idesof wrote:

No offense meant, but you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. You can't even get such elemental figures as AA missile loads for the F-22 and F-35 right.

2 internal F-35 for sure. 2 external, 4-6 internal at a later date assuming that gets setup with Block III software and a bunch of other things that have to be done first that will take priority.

And what is "gutting" the USAF is not the F-35. That culprit's name is Iraq.

Interesting here is that, I only see the USAF first hand just about everyday. Iraq is in fact a big part of that, but so is JSF. The war funding can't be controlled much by USAF. However having gold plated tastes for the F-35 when there are other ways to recapitalize the fleet is irresponsible. In fact Mosley should come right out and say JSF can't be paid for at this time. Then watch the bought and paid for congress (those that belong to LM) pony up the extra funds for JSF. There are tons of other war winning things that make the USAF run that are being hurt now. Killing off JSF, ( kill the body bag maker called V-22 also ) should be easy choices.

....

What other ways are there to recapitalize the fleet? More Gen 4.5 fighters? Kill the Osprey? Just when it's finally working? Killling off the F-35 is an easy choice? I don't see how that would be an easy choice, considering it is the future of ground attack for the USAF and air defence/ground attack for the Air Forces and Fleet Air Arms of nine partner nations. And what exactly does the US tell the partner nations? The cancellation of the F-35 would leave the door wide open for the Eurocanards and I doubt the US would want to give up market dominance so easily.

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Newbie Joined: Jul 13, 2007 Posts: 18 Status: Offline

It will be enough against today's IRST but will it be enough against planned new longwave Focal Plane Array device? F-35 will be avaiable at 2010, at that time, Su-30 will be modernised with new motors, aesa radar and advanced IRST system. It will be not enough against F-22, but F-35 will be in danger.

JaM1977 wrote:

It will be enough against today's IRST but will it be enough against planned new longwave Focal Plane Array device? F-35 will be avaiable at 2010, at that time, Su-30 will be modernised with new motors, aesa radar and advanced IRST system. It will be not enough against F-22, but F-35 will be in danger.

Yes, under clear sky conditions. But who plans to go into combat in perfect conditions (weather or otherwise)? I don't know where you're getting AESA from, IRBIS-E, the latest Russian radar, is a hybrid phased array and I highly doubt it will be widely available by 2010. If by new engines you are talking about the AL-41F, Sukhoi will have to overcome the issue of supersonic weapons separation first and even then no-one knows whether it will make it onto the Flanker, the only aircraft that has been planned to be fitted with the AL-41F so far is the SU-34. Not even Flanker "expert" "Dr" Kopp is sure: It is unclear when the 33,000 to 44,000 lbf class NPO Saturn-Lyulka AL-41F family will find its way into the Su-30 series.
A lot of the SU-30 growth path is dependent on Russia finding the finances to fund a lot of the upgrades.
A lot of these arguments about the Flanker being superior to the Lightning are dependent on "what-ifs". What-if the Flanker gets AESA, What-if the Flanker gets Supercruise, what-if the Flanker gets a new Focal Plane Array device. Whereas the F-35 is the here and now. The Lightning has AESA, the Lightning has the most advanced EOTS in the world and the Lightning has the most powerful engine in production bar the F-22. The F-35 is superior.

Newbie Joined: Jul 13, 2007 Posts: 18 Status: Offline

AussieLightning wrote:

JaM1977 wrote:

It will be enough against today's IRST but will it be enough against planned new longwave Focal Plane Array device? F-35 will be avaiable at 2010, at that time, Su-30 will be modernised with new motors, aesa radar and advanced IRST system. It will be not enough against F-22, but F-35 will be in danger.

Yes, under clear sky conditions. But who plans to go into combat in perfect conditions (weather or otherwise)? I don't know where you're getting AESA from, IRBIS-E, the latest Russian radar, is a hybrid phased array and I highly doubt it will be widely available by 2010. If by new engines you are talking about the AL-41F, Sukhoi will have to overcome the issue of supersonic weapons separation first and even then no-one knows whether it will make it onto the Flanker, the only aircraft that has been planned to be fitted with the AL-41F so far is the SU-34. Not even Flanker "expert" "Dr" Kopp is sure: It is unclear when the 33,000 to 44,000 lbf class NPO Saturn-Lyulka AL-41F family will find its way into the Su-30 series.
A lot of the SU-30 growth path is dependent on Russia finding the finances to fund a lot of the upgrades.
A lot of these arguments about the Flanker being superior to the Lightning are dependent on "what-ifs". What-if the Flanker gets AESA, What-if the Flanker gets Supercruise, what-if the Flanker gets a new Focal Plane Array device. Whereas the F-35 is the here and now. The Lightning has AESA, the Lightning has the most advanced EOTS in the world and the Lightning has the most powerful engine in production bar the F-22. The F-35 is superior.

No F-35 is not here now. It will be here in few years. F-22 is here and now.
Russian development is not that crucial. China has its own development for Su-30. THere is a lot of incestments to obtain AESA radar. Same with India. They sam fund even Russian development.
One big news- Russia has stopped agreement about military restrictions of conventional forces in Europe. They will start building weapons again...

JaM1977 wrote:

It will be enough against today's IRST but will it be enough against planned new longwave Focal Plane Array device? F-35 will be avaiable at 2010, at that time, Su-30 will be modernised with new motors, aesa radar and advanced IRST system. It will be not enough against F-22, but F-35 will be in danger.

And in steamy South East Asian environments, how well are those IRST's going to perform?

How are those SU-30 airframes with their massive RCS and further hamstrung by external weapons carriage going to avoid the more advanced AESA radar that the F-35 WILL have?

Or perhaps like Dr Kopp do you think the 2nd generation APG-81 AESA will be less advanced than Russia's first attempt at an operational AESA? IF any threat Country in SEA actually acquires that is.

Same with the ALF-41 engines. It's a concept. The F-135 IS the most powerful fighter engine in the world at present, with 43,000lbs of thrust having been demonstrated to date. That or the F-136 which will be equally powerful, is what Australia's Lighting II's WILL have.

Hypotheticals are great, however any potential "threat" Countries for Australia are going to have to magically locate a MASSIVE source of funding to make it happen. Malayasia, a comparatively wealthy Country amongst the SU users that Dr Kopp is so worried about, is hoping to get another Squadron of SU-30's within the next 10 years. That'll be their second.

Read the latest Code One magazine as suggested by others? How does high subsonic cruise at 40% of available mil power sound? Does it sound like an under-powered "tubby" aircraft as suggested by it's detractors?

Fact is the F-35 is the BEST choice for Australia. Even if the F-22 were available, I wouldn't advocate it. A fine plane it is and would boost Australia's defence, but the cost and an honest look at Australia's strategic environment show's it's simply unnecessary...

Newbie Joined: Jul 13, 2007 Posts: 18 Status: Offline

I'm not telling F-35 is a bad plane. I'm telling that F-22 is much MUCH better, even its price is 3x higher. One F-22 will eat 3 F-35 alive without problems (in untrustworthy former ally scenario for example).
Malaysia is not a force anybody is afraid. China is. With their resources, they will try to obtain newest technology to upgrade its Su-XX. Now with that Russia move to back off from agreement of conventional weapons in europe, its even posible that they will pay for Su-47 development...

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 909 Status: Offline

Quote:

It will be enough against today's IRST but will it be enough against planned new longwave Focal Plane Array device? F-35 will be avaiable at 2010, at that time, Su-30 will be modernised with new motors, aesa radar and advanced IRST system. It will be not enough against F-22, but F-35 will be in danger.

Well, the problem with IRST being uncompetitive with RF detection methods will not be changed with going to a different IR wave length or even multiple wavelength (2-color) solutions. There are 2 problems here:-

(1) IR radiation -- regardless of wavelength -- is going to degrade as it travels through the atmosphere at a rate that is much worse than microwave radiation. Picking certain wave lengths only improves selectivity and hence clarity of specific target types like aircrafts against the background rubbish you are trying to filter out. It really doesn't improve the diffraction and dispersion losses of the original signature very much. At some point, just like if you put enough soft filters between your subject and a camera, the image becomes too blurry to make heads or tails out off. This is a physics problem which cannot be solved by engineering solutions.

(2) It is also impossible to have a long range IRST without very high magnification. This is due to the limitations of glass and/or mirrors as light guiding devices, as well as sensors being at best the size of a postcard. Basically, if you are searching the sky with a high power telescope, you cannot slew that thing fast enough to have it perform volume search in a timely fashion -- timely being at most tens of seconds not tens of minutes. If you use a wide anlge lens or mirror assembly, you can't see anything far away the size of a fighter. Basically, it is currently impossible to have useful volume search with IRST at long ranges -- it'll take half an hour if not a few hours to complete one sweep. It is however possible to track a target passively at 40~100km using IRST (atmospherics permitting) if you already know where it is and hence the exactly to point your telescope. This is why IRST is a useful secondary tracking sensor and especially useful as a target IDing tool, but is practically useless as a BVR volume search device. This is also why AWACs are not ditching the rotordome or phased array spine for a observatory sized IRST rig.

Basically, it is very simple. If you plan to use IRST against an opponent using radar in a BVR engagement, you lose. Period.

Elite Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 909 Status: Offline

JaM1977 wrote:

I'm not telling F-35 is a bad plane. I'm telling that F-22 is much MUCH better, even its price is 3x higher. One F-22 will eat 3 F-35 alive without problems (in untrustworthy former ally scenario for example).
Malaysia is not a force anybody is afraid. China is. With their resources, they will try to obtain newest technology to upgrade its Su-XX. Now with that Russia move to back off from agreement of conventional weapons in europe, its even posible that they will pay for Su-47 development...

What makes you think so? The way I look at it two stealths fighting each other completely changes the game. Neither will likely see the other at a long distance. This means that if everybody is flying stealths, targets on the ground is going to be hit left and right while A2A exchanges are rare because fighters will fly past each other 60km apart and not realize it, and AWACs and ground radars are pretty much blind as well.

And, when A2A exchanges do happen it can happen at very close ranges <20~30km with both sides rather surprised by the sudden appearance of the other. Things will then become very deadly for both because neither will be able to evade combat. It'll be a slug fest and given the performance of today's AAMs, they can't dodge the missiles or outrun them well within their no escape envelopes either.

If detection and engagements are going to happen in the 10~30km bracket or not at all, and it is going to be almost equally deadly to all regardless of performance, I'll rather have three times as many airframes. More airframes = more targets I can hit for a given time period and more ability to sustain losses.

Newbie Joined: Jul 13, 2007 Posts: 18 Status: Offline

Better Stealth, bigger radar aperture, better aerodynamic performace will make a difference. F-22 will be able to defeat F-35. + there are things we dont know. F-22 dont cost 130mil $ new only because of long development. It definitelly has some systems that will make a huge difference. Kinda hard to believe that 40mil$ plane want to compete with 130 mil$ using almost same technology. btw. at time F-35 will be in for units, F-22 will be already modernised to Block10 or 20, with all those fancy new things that were not avaiable in 2003...

F-35 is a good plane, better than anything enemy will have in few next years, but F-22 is much much better, its even is not fun how much.

Newbie Joined: Jul 13, 2007 Posts: 18 Status: Offline

btw. F-22 is too valuable to be exported to other contry, even closest ally. Israel will have no problem to sell that fancy new technology to China as they always do. (Lavi as an example) F-35 should be enough for any Ally.

Active member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

Conan wrote:

Read the latest Code One magazine as suggested by others? How does high subsonic cruise at 40% of available mil power sound? Does it sound like an under-powered "tubby" aircraft as suggested by it's detractors?

In my opinion, the F-35's basic specs are fine, and the best part is that they're very pragmatic with regard to how we typically use fighters. There are tradeoffs with everything, as we all know. Compared to fighters like the F-15 or F-16, its structure is a bit heavy for the thrust available and its large internal fuel capacity can make it seem even more ungainly, but once you stick a bunch of tanks on those other fighters, the F-35 comes out ahead at virtually every point in the typical mission. The main caveat is that you can't dump substantial fuel weight early on during a mission as quickly, but that's not much of a consideration in the vast majority of scenarios, and with its stealth, sensors, and avionics I don't see how people could complain about the F-35 as long as it lives up to its billing. Make no mistake about it, it's a great design.

A better comparison is with the generally well-respected Su-30MK variants--the very subject of this thread. Physically, the F-35 really does hold a clear edge in the areas that count the most. And the relatively low power setting at high subsonic speed would seem to indicate that like its big brother the F-22, aerodynamically it's pretty efficient at what it does, tubby or not.

Conan wrote:

Fact is the F-35 is the BEST choice for Australia. Even if the F-22 were available, I wouldn't advocate it. A fine plane it is and would boost Australia's defence, but the cost and an honest look at Australia's strategic environment show's it's simply unnecessary...

I'd have to agree. Given the limited budget (due to the limited population) and vast territory involved, the F-35 would seem to be a perfect fit for Australia, based on its range capability alone. I just hope that it'll end up being as affordable as intended so the RAAF can buy enough of them. Assuming that it does, I just don't see how any other fighter (or fighters) could provide such a wide range of capabilities for the cost.

JaM1977 wrote:

I'm not telling F-35 is a bad plane. I'm telling that F-22 is much MUCH better, even its price is 3x higher.

If I had to guess, I don't think that the F-22 will be quite three times as expensive as the F-35 when all is said and done, although for a small-to-moderate-sized air force, the F-35 would still easily be more cost-effective. Large air forces would best acquire some of both, which is exactly what the USAF is doing, obviously.

JaM1977 wrote:

One F-22 will eat 3 F-35 alive without problems (in untrustworthy former ally scenario for example).

While the F-22 does have some capabilities that the F-35 does not (and vice versa), it's hard to tell at this point what would happen between two VLO fighters. When that time comes, the F-22 will most likely be upgraded if necessary in order to help maintain its edge, and should be an overmatch for a single F-35, but we'll have to wait and see about one-versus-many and many-versus-many.

Mainly, within the same air force or coalition, the two fighters' strengths and capabilities complement one another: the F-22 is ideally suited for air combat against conventional fighters (overmatching them in virtually every respect), rapid interception of all types, and penetration into enemy territory to destroy air defenses, while the F-35 will be far more capable at attacking general ground targets.

JaM1977 wrote:

Malaysia is not a force anybody is afraid. China is. With their resources, they will try to obtain newest technology to upgrade its Su-XX.

They're still rather far behind in these technologies, and we're still working hard at getting better, too.

JaM1977 wrote:

Now with that Russia move to back off from agreement of conventional weapons in europe, its even posible that they will pay for Su-47 development...

What do we know about the Su-47 that would make it such a fearsome threat? I seriously doubt that its design is superior to that of the Flanker. The Su-47 is apparently a dead end, which is why Sukhoi is said to be working on newer designs which supposedly possess some degree of low observability, but they're far behind in that area.

dwightlooi wrote:

(1) IR radiation -- regardless of wavelength -- is going to degrade as it travels through the atmosphere at a rate that is much worse than microwave radiation. Picking certain wave lengths only improves selectivity and hence clarity of specific target types like aircrafts against the background rubbish you are trying to filter out. It really doesn't improve the diffraction and dispersion losses of the original signature very much. At some point, just like if you put enough soft filters between your subject and a camera, the image becomes too blurry to make heads or tails out off. This is a physics problem which cannot be solved by engineering solutions.

While it may be theoretically possible to partially work around problems similar to these using techniques such as speckle interferometry, most such techniques only work under controlled conditions, and others would probably not be practical to do in real time. But either way, because of atmospheric absorption, radar will always have an inherent physical advantage over IR systems in the applications relevant to this discussion.

dwightlooi wrote:

JaM1977 wrote:

I'm not telling F-35 is a bad plane. I'm telling that F-22 is much MUCH better, even its price is 3x higher. One F-22 will eat 3 F-35 alive without problems (in untrustworthy former ally scenario for example).

What makes you think so? The way I look at it two stealths fighting each other completely changes the game. Neither will likely see the other at a long distance.
...
And, when A2A exchanges do happen it can happen at very close ranges <20~30km with both sides rather surprised by the sudden appearance of the other. Things will then become very deadly for both because neither will be able to evade combat.

The F-22 should clearly be kinematically superior, as it was designed to be, and therefore better able to choose when and how to engage or escape, provided that the proper tactics are used. Even if one F-22 gets in trouble, the others, flying faster and higher than the F-35s and possessing superior maneuverability, will use the information being gathered by the first F-22 to position themselves advantageously.

The F-22 is also equipped with a larger radar array as well as the ALR-94 (and upgraded versions thereof), and nobody can really say how this will factor into the equation, except that if one will generally detect the other first, it would be the F-22 that has the advantage.

And should missiles prove ineffective in some engagements, as they unfortunately often have been against even non-stealth fighters, then the F-22 will also have the advantage in an old-school WVR dogfight with guns--YEE-HAW! Crazy Pilot

AussieLightning wrote:

elp wrote:

idesof wrote:

No offense meant, but you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. You can't even get such elemental figures as AA missile loads for the F-22 and F-35 right.

2 internal F-35 for sure. 2 external, 4-6 internal at a later date assuming that gets setup with Block III software and a bunch of other things that have to be done first that will take priority.

And what is "gutting" the USAF is not the F-35. That culprit's name is Iraq.

Interesting here is that, I only see the USAF first hand just about everyday. Iraq is in fact a big part of that, but so is JSF. The war funding can't be controlled much by USAF. However having gold plated tastes for the F-35 when there are other ways to recapitalize the fleet is irresponsible. In fact Mosley should come right out and say JSF can't be paid for at this time. Then watch the bought and paid for congress (those that belong to LM) pony up the extra funds for JSF. There are tons of other war winning things that make the USAF run that are being hurt now. Killing off JSF, ( kill the body bag maker called V-22 also ) should be easy choices.

....

What other ways are there to recapitalize the fleet? More Gen 4.5 fighters? Kill the Osprey? Just when it's finally working? Killling off the F-35 is an easy choice? I don't see how that would be an easy choice, considering it is the future of ground attack for the USAF and air defence/ground attack for the Air Forces and Fleet Air Arms of nine partner nations. And what exactly does the US tell the partner nations? The cancellation of the F-35 would leave the door wide open for the Eurocanards and I doubt the US would want to give up market dominance so easily.

Hi AL, welcome to the forum.

Since when is the Osprey "working"? We will only know that after it has completed it's first tour ( which it is going on very soon ) There is an emergency fund now to get some much needed appliances for it to survive continuous hot climes ( even with it's latest block variant. I'll believe it when I see it.

Unless you have seen it first hand, I can't overstress it enough that USAF is hurting for money as never before. Above my comments were mostly in the context of .... the USAF. USAF can break ANY integrated IADS without JSF. So no problem there if we never see it. Especially when we need money desperately spent on tankers, C-5 upgrades, ISR (E-10), B-52 SOJ, C-130 recapitalization, etc etc. And that doesn't even include the day to day programs joe public doesn't see that sustain the people and facilities that allow the USAF to be what it is. We have almost no money for proper stuff. And once large SAMs and fighters are down, I don't really need a stealth aircraft for the sake of stealth. Hell even a Super Hornet E Block II looks really good on dirt missions we do after the beat down. Where we fight most of our wars against people that bury their air force in the sand, for USAF anyway, stocking up on some F-22s and then some for a rainy day and after that I don't care what legacy fighter with a new car smell, F-16 or F-18E/F we get. Laugh at a Super idea in USAF colors is certainly funny. However when F-15 and F-16 production stop and IF JSF runs into some serious trouble. Tell me please: What is the only legacy airframe we have in production for grocery getter strike work? It's production will last some more with the new USN order coming on, and if JSF really fails USN will need even more Supers to fill out their deck.
Allies... we still have some after alienating half the world? Laughing

We need MORE medium and long range strike assets. We have less and less foreign land bases to fight from. We don't need more short range strike assets. Any idea of replacing our F-16 fleet on a one to one basis is looney tunes.

Thanks, ELP. Call me naive but I don't think the USMC would send the Osprey to war if had not overcome the problems it experienced during its early developmental stage, then again the USAF did send the F-111A into combat in Vietnam prematurely, but given the Osprey's extraordinarily long gestation, I doubt the USMC/USAF/USN would admit defeat by cancelling it just when they appear to making headway.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the USAF's fickle financial situation and that they may need to cut back on JSF numbers, but to say that cancelling the whole project should be an easy choice is, no offence, but absurd. Especially given that unlike the Raptor, nine other nations (plus the observer nations) are funding it. Of course, the amount of money that the partner nations are pouring into the project is nothing compared to what the US is, it still goes a long way; and when in production the F-35 is going to devastate the export market and as I said, I doubt the US would want to give up market dominance so easily.
As for "dirt missions" I don't think anybody realises the true worth of the F-35's EOTS for such situations yet.
I agree with you on the need for more medium and long-range strike assets, you won't find a bigger bomber advocate then myself, indeed I was sorely disappointed when the QDR ruled out funding for the FB-22 concept and I have been of the opinion for some time that the USAF's ORBAT has been missing something since the retirement of the F-111. However, the Air Force is dedicated to the 2018 bomber, and when it comes to the AF and their bombers, not even the biggest penny pinching congressman will be able to get in their way. Reduce numbers maybe, but not cancel it outright.
As for medium-range strike assets, unfortunately, in dire financial times, such niche projects have to take a back seat to more pressing needs such as AAR and Transport and given that the USAF intends to replace the Beagle with the Lightning, that at the moment there is no desire for such a system.

Veteran Joined: Jun 23, 2006 Posts: 415 Status: Offline

Quote:

Any idea of replacing our F-16 fleet on a one to one basis is looney tunes.

As always Elp you are more flash than substance. Since you hijacked this thread already and injected politics into it we may as well keep on going.

For starters, why do we have to replace F-16s on a 1 for 1 basis? Where is the threat? I would not be surprised if one F-35 replaces two F-16s. There is no bear. The F-35 carries pgms and it is stealthy. Why one for one when the threat is not there and the plane that is replacing it is more than twice as effective?

Quote:

We need MORE medium and long range strike assets.

B1s, B2, B52s, Tankers for F-16s, F-15s, and F-22s, and F-35s, cruise missiles and Aircraft Carriers. Care to come up with a plausible scenario where we come up short?

Quote:

and if JSF really fails

A you being deliberately stupid or are you really that dimwitted. Where are these indications that it will fail?

Quote:

We have almost no money for proper stuff

Last I looked the armed forces got over 500 billion and this does not include the supplemental budget requests to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Military operations and to some extend combat losses are made good using supplemental budget requests which are in ADDITION to the regular 500 billion dollar budget.

As for dire straights, lets put blame where blame is due. During the prior to the 90's multi year AC buys where in the 100s. During the 90s the number of AC bought in a single year could be counted on both hands. We are now paying the price for the "Peace Dividend". It has nothing to do with Iraq.

Quote:

Unless you have seen it first hand, I can't overstress it enough that USAF is hurting for money as never before.

See above. Also Raptors ain't cheap.

Quote:

Since when is the Osprey "working"?

Since when is it not.

AussieLightning wrote:

As for medium-range strike assets, unfortunately, in dire financial times, such niche projects have to take a back seat to more pressing needs such as AAR and Transport and given that the USAF intends to replace the Beagle with the Lightning, that at the moment there is no desire for such a system.

Beagle won't be going anywhere any time soon. Very Happy

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35A vs SU-30MK (physical characteristics)