CSBA Analyst Calls For F-35C Redesign

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 946
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 03:43

While I will agree that the F-35C is superior of the Super Bug and the soon to be Block III Super Bug, the USN still lacks a dedicated fleet defense platform. The F-35A is GREAT but it is no F-22 and the USAF admits that time and time again. They have to lean more on their F-35s. Not because they want to, because they have to. They never got the proper amount of F-22s to sufficiently fill the air superiority/dominance role.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7645
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 03:59

If the idea is to put 1000 miles between the CBG and the DF-21D. it should be relatively easy for the Chinese to field even longer ranged AShBMs.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5214
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 04:01

charlielima223 wrote:While I will agree that the F-35C is superior of the Super Bug and the soon to be Block III Super Bug, the USN still lacks a dedicated fleet defense platform. The F-35A is GREAT but it is no F-22 and the USAF admits that time and time again. They have to lean more on their F-35s. Not because they want to, because they have to. They never got the proper amount of F-22s to sufficiently fill the air superiority/dominance role.



Really, what threat is the F-35C ill prepared to handle in the foreseeable future??? :|
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2682
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 07:55

Corsair1963 wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:While I will agree that the F-35C is superior of the Super Bug and the soon to be Block III Super Bug, the USN still lacks a dedicated fleet defense platform. The F-35A is GREAT but it is no F-22 and the USAF admits that time and time again. They have to lean more on their F-35s. Not because they want to, because they have to. They never got the proper amount of F-22s to sufficiently fill the air superiority/dominance role.


Really, what threat is the F-35C ill prepared to handle in the foreseeable future??? :|


I've been wondering this for a long time too. It seems that the idea of fleet defense is that it's 1980s again with large number of Backfires screaming towards carrier batte group to fire their huge Kh-22 Kitchen missiles and fleet defense fighters quickly scramble to meet them flying fast and firing Phoenix-like missiles to kill them.

I do think that F-35C is actually remarkable fleet defense fighter. It has great sensors and SA, especially when networked with each other and Aegis systems. It might not be the fastest or fastest accelerating fighter (like F-22), but it has a lot of gas meaning long range and endurance. That and SA means that it can be where needed and individual F-35Cs can be very far apart and still have great mutual support. AIM-120D gives pretty good reach and kill probability even against modern threats. One great thing is VLO stealth, which will make attacking carriers very daunting task as it would be very difficult to know how many F-35Cs there is in the air and where they are and what they are doing. F-35s will be part of kill web around and over carrier battle groups instead of the old way of doing fleet defense. That kill web uses the combined SA of all F-35s, E-2Ds and F/A-18s and ships and does the killing using all the weapos carried by F-35s, F/A-18s and the ships themselves. I don't think there really is need for dedicated fleet defense fighter in this context.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5214
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 08:10

hornetfinn wrote:
I've been wondering this for a long time too. It seems that the idea of fleet defense is that it's 1980s again with large number of Backfires screaming towards carrier batte group to fire their huge Kh-22 Kitchen missiles and fleet defense fighters quickly scramble to meet them flying fast and firing Phoenix-like missiles to kill them.

I do think that F-35C is actually remarkable fleet defense fighter. It has great sensors and SA, especially when networked with each other and Aegis systems. It might not be the fastest or fastest accelerating fighter (like F-22), but it has a lot of gas meaning long range and endurance. That and SA means that it can be where needed and individual F-35Cs can be very far apart and still have great mutual support. AIM-120D gives pretty good reach and kill probability even against modern threats. One great thing is VLO stealth, which will make attacking carriers very daunting task as it would be very difficult to know how many F-35Cs there is in the air and where they are and what they are doing. F-35s will be part of kill web around and over carrier battle groups instead of the old way of doing fleet defense. That kill web uses the combined SA of all F-35s, E-2Ds and F/A-18s and ships and does the killing using all the weapons carried by F-35s, F/A-18s and the ships themselves. I don't think there really is need for dedicated fleet defense fighter in this context.


Clearly, it would be hard to beat the F-22 in that role as it's speed both high and fast is remarkable. Yet, the F-35C doesn't have to defeat the F-22 because the Russians and Chinese don't have them.

In addition if some want to harken back to the good old days of the F-14 Tomcat. I wouldn't because the F-35C would eat it for lunch! :twisted:
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2082
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 08:53

Corsair1963 wrote:Clearly, it would be hard to beat the F-22 in that role as it's speed both high and fast is remarkable. Yet, the F-35C doesn't have to defeat the F-22 because the Russians and Chinese don't have them.


I wonder what, if anything, would happen to that vaunted F-22 air-to-air performance once LM got done modifying it to meet nasal radiator requirements: approach & landing speeds, strengthened undercarriage and structure to support cat launches & traps. And marinizing everything from a corrosion perspective. Could the Navy even afford the things? Would it's range still be adequate for the naval mission? (Isn't F-22 combat radius on the order of 450 or 500nm on internal fuel only? Gotta ways to go to get to 1000nm.) Acceleration would suffer a bit. Should still be decent, but may be less than the F-16 Blk 50 after all the extra weight for cats & traps. Hopefully it should still supercruise. Range will be somewhat less.

But, that's all right. Clark & others will merely opine that it is too expensive... cut production in half, buy more Stupid Dupers while we work on a 7th gen replacement... :doh:
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

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5214
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 09:24

Good Point...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22479
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 09:39

How to Modify the RAPTOROUS ONE for all kinds of MISSHUNs some by MILLS & Goon but mostly HUMOUROUS - 'flycookie'.
Attachments
F-22ModifyingNavyUSMCusafBomberPP6prn.pdf
(409.2 KiB) Downloaded 70 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 841
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 12:16

Corsair1963 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
I've been wondering this for a long time too. It seems that the idea of fleet defense is that it's 1980s again with large number of Backfires screaming towards carrier batte group to fire their huge Kh-22 Kitchen missiles and fleet defense fighters quickly scramble to meet them flying fast and firing Phoenix-like missiles to kill them.

I do think that F-35C is actually remarkable fleet defense fighter. It has great sensors and SA, especially when networked with each other and Aegis systems. It might not be the fastest or fastest accelerating fighter (like F-22), but it has a lot of gas meaning long range and endurance. That and SA means that it can be where needed and individual F-35Cs can be very far apart and still have great mutual support. AIM-120D gives pretty good reach and kill probability even against modern threats. One great thing is VLO stealth, which will make attacking carriers very daunting task as it would be very difficult to know how many F-35Cs there is in the air and where they are and what they are doing. F-35s will be part of kill web around and over carrier battle groups instead of the old way of doing fleet defense. That kill web uses the combined SA of all F-35s, E-2Ds and F/A-18s and ships and does the killing using all the weapons carried by F-35s, F/A-18s and the ships themselves. I don't think there really is need for dedicated fleet defense fighter in this context.


Clearly, it would be hard to beat the F-22 in that role as it's speed both high and fast is remarkable. Yet, the F-35C doesn't have to defeat the F-22 because the Russians and Chinese don't have them.

In addition if some want to harken back to the good old days of the F-14 Tomcat. I wouldn't because the F-35C would eat it for lunch! :twisted:

not to minimise the transonic acceleration of the C, but it was driven by navy wanting the weapon load. It is higher than the USAF and USMC wanted.
chip said the least impressive thing about the f-22 is the speed. fast is yesterday's tech. I think he meant top speed.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5070
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 14:18

popcorn wrote:If the idea is to put 1000 miles between the CBG and the DF-21D. it should be relatively easy for the Chinese to field even longer ranged AShBMs.


Yep. Far easier to add 300 more miles range to a missile than a carrier strike wing. And DF-26 is already pushing it out to 2,000 miles (if it works as claimed).

"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2082
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 15:21

Shot of the nose cone towards the end of that video reminded me of the Pershing II.
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
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5070
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 15:39

steve2267 wrote:Shot of the nose cone towards the end of that video reminded me of the Pershing II.


The DF-21 is pretty much a Pershing II knock-off. The DF-26 has even more range.

DF-21
29559362942_3212a16e12_o.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5070
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 16:38

marauder2048 wrote:The bomber streams were detected with OTH-B and then destroyed
with terminal seeker equipped MaRVs launched by surface ships and
submarines
.


There are no such weapons in the US inventory. Nor have there ever been. Backfires & Bears were to be detected by Hawkeyes and attacked by Tomcats (hopefully before weapon release). The AS-16 Kickback (Kh-15) was designed specifically to fly over lofted Phoenix shots. That was the outer air-battle at sea. (With AS-4s in the mix as well.)

marauder2048 wrote:In some cases, stealthy UAVs lurked around bomber ingress routes


Which stealthy UAVs are these?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2082
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 18:52

spazsinbad wrote:How to Modify the RAPTOROUS ONE for all kinds of MISSHUNs some by MILLS & Goon but mostly HUMOUROUS - 'flycookie'.


$230M total to create a marinised, naval variant of the F-22? Not to mention that NG and Boing would do all the work. LM be like, "yah, sure... here's all our design stuff... have at it."

Not only do they not state why an F-22N would provide "around three times the capability the capability of the F-35C" they pull modification costs out of thin air: non-recurring R&D + design at $230M tops and unit costs of "only $10M more" than the F-22A production cost of $142M each. A production run of 500 will further drop costs "a lot" (my paraphrase), ignoring the fact that $142M each (was the F-22 ever that inexpensive?) was the price from an already mature program.
It may be necessary to 'beef-up' the airframe in some places, but the basic supersonic 9G-rated structure is already there. Specific design changes might include a carrier qualified 24 ft/sec sink rate undercarriage, 'beefing up' the support and load transfer structure for the stronger undercarriage, a navalized nose gear with catapult launch bar, and a carrier-rated arrestor hook for recoveries.


Need to "beef-up" a few things? Add a cat bar, carrier-rated hook, strengthen the undercarriage a bit... but that 9-G airframe is A-OK. They had a current day example staring them in the face from which they could estimate weight gains and airframe performance penalties in the F-35A vs F-35C: 19% weight growth in the base airframe alone, loss of 1.5G performance, and slower acceleration times. Surely those numbers easily found in F-35 Fast Facts were available at the time this comedy piece was written.

Tell me that was not a professional paper -- that they were NOT paid to write that. Because if they were... where can I get a job like that? I can sling the bullshit at least as well as those nimrods.

Oy vey...
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

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3084
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post12 Feb 2019, 19:34

popcorn wrote:If the idea is to put 1000 miles between the CBG and the DF-21D. it should be relatively easy for the Chinese to field even longer ranged AShBMs.

It's not the range of the missiles so much as the ability to target, at increasingly extended ranges. The Chinese have yet to demonstrate that they can generate targeting data against a moving/maneuvering target, at extended ranges. They've hit static targets, at known locations and at much shorter ranges. Hitting a target that doesn't want to be found, at 1000nm, (or 500nm, for that matter), under highly degraded ISR conditions, and that is protected by SM-2/3/6, is a challenge. In a shooting war, the OTH radars would likely be taken out by subs with Tomahawks, and bombers with JASSM-ER (and XR in the coming years.) Manned and unmanned ISR platforms would likely be engaged kinetically or non-kinetically, to degrade their kill chain. I wouldn't bet on their satellites being unmolested, either. We have a lot more resilience/redundancy built into to our systems, in that kind of scenario. In the mid 2020s and beyond, the carrier air wing will have a lot longer legs, with MQ-25 and ACE motors. With a 30 to 35% range increase on internal fuel, plus tanking up 500nm out, an F-35C will easily reach well past 1000nm (probably closer to 1250+.) If the USN ever buys JASSM-ER/XR, that would allow F-35s to hit targets at 1800 to 2200nm+ from the carrier. Even with JSOW-ER and JSM, F-35Cs could hit targets over 1500nm away.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest