F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 08:08

hornetfinn wrote:
popcorn wrote:So how does it work. The AMRAAM seeker is activated when it it sure by the INS that the target should be within a certain calculated range? Might there be an option for the F-35 to activate the seeker for more precise targeting?


I think the activation distance depends on many factors and I really doubt there is any set universal distance where it goes active. I think distance and time to estimated impact point are likely factors. Target maneuvering and target tracking and update quality/estimated accuracy likely affect that also. It might well be that F-35 can provide so good targeting data that missile activation is done later than with say 4th gen fighter with MSA radar. But this is just my guess and it might also differ from AMRAAM version. Like A-version is probably much more primitive (as it was hardwired missile) even in this compared to D-model for example.


Agree HF, that's almost certainly the case, as using lower pk options like missile going active early, or pilot using fire-and-forget tactics, become undesirable when you can support a missile (probably several simultaneously) all the way to their target(s), and there's little danger to own aircraft being killed - just don't close the radius too much.

It makes little sense to keep using AMRAAMs in conventional ways, even since F-22A appeared, and especially since F-35 went IOC. I'd say there's no pressing need to replace AMRAAM, as the D model will be able to do so much more than earlier AMRAAM versions when teamed with F-35. For instance, why even use a 180 deg HOBS shot, if no one can see your approach, or ambush-loiter tactic, or an egress? No one survives to talk about it.

So what exactly would a new missile bring, or offer? More shots?

Would more shots be needed if pk has become so much better when using 120D with F-35A - 6 high-pk BVR AAMs should be enough for a fight. And logically the 'NEZ' will become bigger when used by F-35 using stealth tactics and having the best time and space and tools (MDF) to attain the best firing angles and alts, compared with any 4th-gen platform using the very same missiles. And what does it signify to say a missile has a certain 'pk' value, if pk is different for different launch platforms, tactics and technology options used?

4 for 4 kill rate does not seem such a stretch.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 08:32

Consider also the tactical effects of a flight of 4 x Su35 in a formation box measuring less than 10 km on a side, while a flight a 4 x F-35A going after them can easily be in a box measuring greater than 100 km on a side, while maintaining the same local SA, and nearly ideal regional SA and continuous target cues on four oblivious Su35 ... lambs to the slaughter.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 11:14

An Australian view on RED Flag 19-1: https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... ed-flag-19
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 12:09

[quote="element1loop]

So what exactly would a new missile bring, or offer? More shots?

Would more shots be needed if pk has become so much better when using 120D with F-35A - 6 high-pk BVR AAMs should be enough for a fight. And logically the 'NEZ' will become bigger when used by F-35 using stealth tactics and having the best time and space and tools (MDF) to attain the best firing angles and alts, compared with any 4th-gen platform using the very same missiles. And what does it signify to say a missile has a certain 'pk' value, if pk is different for different launch platforms, tactics and technology options used?

4 for 4 kill rate does not seem such a stretch.[/quote]

SACM would be dual purpose, able to take out bandits and CMs. Next to fuel, I guess,Always Nnce to have the extra missiles.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2967
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 12:43

I think more air-to-air missiles even at the expense of range might be good to have especially if enemy has a lot of cruise missiles or drones. But I think co-operative engagement capabilities of F-35 might make larger individual weapons load less needed in real life.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 14:13

So what exactly would a new missile bring, or offer? More shots?


Looking ahead against much faster or stealthier targets, probably another boost stage to increase speed to hunt down hypersonic targets and a dual GaN/IR seeker to keep the pK high against much stealthier targets. The AIM-120D is more than adequate at the moment with a powerful AESA guiding it to the target but my suggestions would make it, or a future missile, more of a reliable fire and forget weapon against future threats if the F-35 is otherwise disposed in combat
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 21:52

hornetfinn wrote:I think more air-to-air missiles even at the expense of range might be good to have especially if enemy has a lot of cruise missiles or drones. But I think co-operative engagement capabilities of F-35 might make larger individual weapons load less needed in real life.

Networked SA will help ensure a challenge threats are prioritized in lieu of decoys.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2487
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post22 Feb 2019, 00:21

marsavian wrote:Looking ahead against much faster or stealthier targets, probably another boost stage to increase speed to hunt down hypersonic targets and a dual GaN/IR seeker to keep the pK high against much stealthier targets. The AIM-120D is more than adequate at the moment with a powerful AESA guiding it to the target but my suggestions would make it, or a future missile, more of a reliable fire and forget weapon against future threats if the F-35 is otherwise disposed in combat


Do you fully understand what you are asking to be able to intercept hypersonic targets? I'm not even sure I do. But I recall statements by Brian Shul and possibly other Sled drivers that to defeat inbound SAMs, they only needed to turn a few degrees or push the speed up a bit. And this was only an SR-71 ( 3.2 - 3.5 Mach ). Inbound SAMs were, if memory serves, 3+ Mach SA-2s. So to target hypersonic bandits... which will be moving somewhere in the 4-6 Mach range... you are going to need, at a minimum, probably a 5-6+ Mach missile. One, I am not sure you can really get an AMRAAM-sized AAM missile moving 5-6Mach, with any sort of range. And two, minor course deviations or maneuvers may be all that is required to defeat your inbound UBERAAM.

I will admit that a 5-6 Mach AAM with a dual-pulse motor to regain energy in the end-game may be the ticket against other aircraft at range. But targeting hypersonic bandits with AAMs may be a stretch. I think some sort of DEW -- particle beam or laser -- would be a better bet against a hypersonic bandit.

Here's a different twist: what missile do you imagine will be of use against F-35's or F-22's at 50-100nm? What!? Can't target, let alone detect, them at that range? Then what to do when the Chinese and possibly the Russians (or maybe the Franco German Spanish (FGS?)) finally develop the equivalent VLO aircraft? We might be back to WVR (maybe near BVR) combat once again. Then what? Highly agile, short range IIR missiles with tremendous speed to kill the other guy quickest might be the ticket. Sounds a bit like SACM / CUDA. OR DEW weapons. Star Wars here we come! Pew pew pew...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3641
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post22 Feb 2019, 14:21

That's actually a great point..

If China or Russia or whoever start pumping out hundreds or thousands of stealth jets, it might be back to dogfights. Another reason to continue to develop more/superior sensors and get up rated engines in the future F-35 roadmap.'

I don't think Russia or China's first generation stealth will pose this problem. The one after the J-20 though, might...
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post22 Feb 2019, 21:09

Salute!

Ya got it, Mixel !!!. Steve is pointing out what many know already. At the closure rates of very fast missiles and their targets' speeds, just a tiny, but well-timed maneuver will defeat a missile.

Think about an old missile like the SA-2, one of which zoomed in front of me one day and went off right behind the flight ahead. Flew thru the cloud about 15 or 20 seconds later when all the big particles were gone. We were all st and level for a LORAN drop at 20,000 to 25,000 feet or so. Basically looked like WW2 B-17's over the Reich. The SAM came thru the undercast at the speed of stink but could not make a square corner to kill my buddies in front. The ALQ-119 doofers worked, so the SAM dude couldn't get both altitude and range/bearing/ground speed good enuf and he was using home-on-jam. From the time that thing came outta the clouds about 10,000 feet below until it passed our altitude was about 2 to 3 seconds.

Think about head-on shot of anything versus a Sled doing over 3,000 ft/sec and the missile doing 4,000 or 5,000 ft/sec. You have fuze problems and warhead kill radius and such. Of course the missle can pull dozens of gees, but laws of physics dictate huge turn radii.

Hence, a highly maneuverable close-in missile that uses IR or EO or its own radar seeker can make your day. Ask the Brits about the AIM-9L in the Falklands. Oh yeah, a cannon shell is fire and forget and cannot be decoyed. Hmmmmmmm.

So bottom line is we may still wind up close and do not wish to repeat the early Viet Nam philosophy that we only needed missiles that we could fire from 15 miles away.

Gums sends.......
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3641
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 12:22

Gums (if I may), what were you flying when an SA-2 flew in front of you? I know you flew A-37's in 'Nam, but I wasn't under the impression most A-37's bombed straight and level. F-105's, maybe?

With respect to the gun, I understand what you're saying. It's good the F-35A includes an internal, though it has modest ammunition (180 rounds?) vs. previous US fighters. Now, when we get to the gun pod on the B and C... I sincerely hope it's not like the centerline pod we deployed on F-4's in Vietnam. Have read nothing but problems with that weapon.

I assume (bad, I know) it doesn't significantly degrade its stealth (or maneuverability) properties. I know there were issues too, but last I knew these were being corrected. Going forward, it'll be very interesting to see how often the B and C carry it. And if Israel gets the B, that'll be a real test.

We all know how the Israeli's love the gun, and I can't recall a time when they flew fighters without one...
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 16:08

Salute!

@Mixel Many war stories and opinions/contributions over on the original F-16.net forums, especially the "military" ones that have many posts about the Sluf, aka Corsair II, aka A-7. can also read biography on the member interviews and hall of fame section.

In poor weather 45 years ago, we dropped above the clouds or in the clouds with guidance from ground radar ( see Lima Site 85 and Skyspot) OR we flew wing on an F-4 loran bird and dropped with him. Standard was two F-4 with an A-7 four-ship on each wing. Dropped either 2 x MK-84 or 12 x MK-82, so was exactly the B-17 bomb loadout.

I flew 3 missions over Hanoi during the "twelve days of Christmas" 1972, and two were LORAN drops boring in st and level like over Berlin 30 years prior, one was visual and very exciting, heh heh.
+++++++++++++++++++++++==
But back to the thread.

One of the biggest challenges for the missiles was an effective fuze. So some even had manual commnds and a lot of the shrapnel would go forward like a shotgun blast. Then we had impact like the AIM-4 had. And finally both RF and IR/laser scanners like the later AIM-9 used for the expanding rod warhead.

So it is not hard to fathom that a good stern shot has a lot higher Pk than face shot or even a high beam shot, altho my classmate Steve had a beautiful Sparrow kill from "across the circle" that is on Youtube and other places. He tried two techniques and never cme to a conclusion I heard - shoot, look shoot again versus shoot, shoot. So one engagement he had a beautiful kill and the second Sparrow flew thru the fireball/smoking wreckage. By then, he and Bob Lodge and the missile folks had figured things out. Plus, both of those guys knew the envelope backwards and forwards and could get the required geometry.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2414
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 16:10

mixelflick wrote:Gums (if I may), what were you flying when an SA-2 flew in front of you? I know you flew A-37's in 'Nam, but I wasn't under the impression most A-37's bombed straight and level. F-105's, maybe?


I remember Gums saying that he also flew the A-7 (Corsair II). From what I gather, that could have been his mount on that situation but of course only Gums himself can really reply to this? :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2487
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 18:09

mixelflick wrote:With respect to the gun, I understand what you're saying. It's good the F-35A includes an internal, though it has modest ammunition (180 rounds?) vs. previous US fighters. Now, when we get to the gun pod on the B and C... I sincerely hope it's not like the centerline pod we deployed on F-4's in Vietnam. Have read nothing but problems with that weapon.

I assume (bad, I know) it doesn't significantly degrade its stealth (or maneuverability) properties. I know there were issues too, but last I knew these were being corrected. Going forward, it'll be very interesting to see how often the B and C carry it. And if Israel gets the B, that'll be a real test.


Mixel, I started the The GAU-22/A thread just to document the F-35 gun system, and address questions such as yours. Check it out if you have not already -- 8 pages of BRRRRRTTT goodness. That thread compares the F-35 with the GAU-22/A gun to other contemporary aircraft and shows the Lightning to have the highest throw weight (mass) per second, the highest rate of fire (compared to non-US aircraft), and a comparable total throw weight compared to older 4th gen aircraft. While at first glance, 180 rounds may sound modest, Dragon documented burst lengths as short as 12 rounds per burst (viewtopic.php?p=405906#p405906). We already know from test flights that the aircraft can fire 60 and 100 round bursts should the occasion warrant. Since the GAU-22/A is reverse clearing, not a single one of those 180 rounds is wasted. This burst length precision means a Lightning driver can opt for upwards of 15 shots per sortie, or hose down an area, or maximize the hit probability in an air-to-air scenario as (s)he sees fit. IMO, this is a capability unprecedented in modern aerial gunnery.

While DOT&E has harped on some gun shortcomings on the -A model, the Killer Bee and C Dragon are meeting all contractual gun requirements. As soon as LM sorts out the alignment issues on the -A, I have no doubt that the GAU-22/A will be one of the most, if not the most, capable gun systems on any aircraft flying today.

Crews has already commented that the USMC never flies the AV-8B on combat sorties without the gun system, and he did not see that changing with the Killer Bee. What the nasal radiators choose to do... I dunno. I'll hazard a guess the flying squids will make a determination on an as mission basis.

I recall comments by JohnWill or possibly others discussing the fact that the mounting system of the external gun pod on the Killer Bee and C Dragon models is NOT comparable to the manner in which the old Vulcan was mounted on the Phantoms, and, as such, the gun pod on the Lightnings should not suffer from any issues that were experienced on the F-4.

mixelflick wrote:We all know how the Israeli's love the gun, and I can't recall a time when they flew fighters without one...


You write this sentence in a manner that seems to suggest the Israeli's love the gun more than fighter pilot's from other nations. Would you care to elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what you mean by it.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 02:54

While 180 rounds may sound modest, that is compared to US fighters with 20mm Gatling cannons. Since the F-35 uses a 25mm gun, fewer rounds are required to achieve the same result. Also, consider that the F-35 carries more rounds than all current European and Russian fighters.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: f-15c85-0114 and 27 guests